Even forgetting about the Sony rootkit debacle (although it was the nail in their coffin for me), I'd go with the 360 over the PS3 largely because of the online features. I have a PS2 now and every time I get a new online game, I have to go through another signup process and then, depending upon the age of the game, the publisher might not even be running a game server anymore. After that experience, I'm all for a *unified* online experience that brings together lots of gamers from lots of disciplines.
The fact that I can buy games through Live Arcade is a plus...I love the convenience of Steam and this should be at least as promising. In fact, the first thing I'm going to buy is Geometry Wars before even buying anything in a store.
Not too well; I think it is highly a specialized G5. OTOH, there was that article some time ago about a guy that was fired from MSFT for taking a photo of a bunch of G5 Powermacs being delivered to the Redmond campus.
My mom and aunt are from the old country, but pronounce the end of it with a sht sound. Also, it's always home-made. In fact, that's the only type of borscht I've ever had. That and perogies, except for the ones at the Goldman Sachs cafeteria, which I think are at least hand made in the facility.
I got a 30" CRT HD set from CompUSA for $800 when they were clearing out their inventories of CRT-based TVs. I enjoy all the HD channels, but there's no way I'd spend more than what I did.
From what I understand by listening to the Word Nerds podcast, the OED is more of a "record" than a "source" on the English language. Now that may seem like splitting hairs, but the way it's put together is by delving into English-speaking cultures (there are several versions of the OED by region) and seeing how the people are using the language. In other words, it doesn't say, "this is how the English language is," but rather "this is how the English language is being used at this point in time and here are some examples of how it has been used at other points in time."
Apple didn't invent the word "podcast." As to what "should" or "should not" be part of a language, that wreaks of the same elitism that leads the French government to have a ministry of language. Language is what the people speak, period. Language is descriptive, not proscriptive.
"Publishers from Europe are complaining that Internet search engines are making money off their copyright-protected material. 'This is unlikely to be sustainable for publishers in the longer term.', says Francisco Pinto Balsemao, head of the European Publishers Council."
What a whiny little biatch. *Every* news outlet with an online presence has one of two choices:
1. Do not make your content openly accessible through the HTTP protocol and charge a fee. 2. Use robots.txt, which Google honours.
Until one of those two actions are taken, Francisco, you have FREELY VOLUNTEERED to offer your content to news aggregators and anyone with a web browser. This is a choice you can make *right now*, instead of complaining like a baby.
I would say that lack of compelling content will kill all but actual, "local radio." Where I live, radio stations like New Jersey 101.5 FM and WWFM, The Classical Network, provide me with up-to-date access to information I need to function in my community (snow closings, traffic info, local news and discussions). The big commercial stations don't give me anything I can't already get on my iPod. Satellite radio will have its heyday for a while because it's new and offers variety, but I can't see it surviving a revolution in nationwide, wireless internetworking (ie WiMax). When that happens, I think local radio will have already made the jump to internet broadcasting. In fact, the two stations I mentioned are already available via streaming through the net.
The shareholders that bought IPO shares don't have the vote...that is still held by the founders and employees. Google structured its IPO in this way to keep control where control belongs--in the hands of the people on the front lines running the company. That way they can run the company the way they see fit for the long term and not worry about quarterly jitters and having some assh0le financial investor shake-out management. There are quite a few public companies that are set up this way, actually.
Adam-12 has been available in a compact, portable format for some time...as Viewmaster slide wheels! I think I even had a 33rpm record to go along with it.
Gas taxes are a revenue figure. "Oil industry profits" are just that...profit, which is equal to revenue less expenses. Oil industry revenue would be the proper figure to look at...which are obviously more than the tax revenue. TFA loses all credibility in my view on that quote alone and appears to be a shill piece for people that don't know the difference between revenue and profit.
It's really nice of them to release a web-based service, but wouldn't the customers still be beholden to WMV files infected with DRM? They'll work fine when I'm using my work PC running Windows XP, but they're utterly useless on my iBook + iPod or my (admittedly little used) Ubuntu installation.
"No, a free market works with people making informed decisions and no one disclosing their information."
That's a contradictory statement. If no one discloses their information, then no one is making an informed decision. It just seems like your statement is trying to justify lying by omission.
"So? Why anyone would put capital into a business that they control 0.001% of is beyond me."
No one that is buying stock on the stock marketing is buying control and is aware that they are not buying control. People buy stock for either the dividends or capital appreciation. Moreover, it is very disturbing that your "So?" comment was in response to my statement that buying or selling stock on the open market with insider knowledge would amount to fraud. Your lack of understanding as to why people invest in stocks does not justify committing fraud.
"Stocks should be sold "as-is" just like cars. If you need guarantees, make a contract."
Sorry, no one has the right in the first place to knowingly defraud anyone. Again, all I'm reading from you is more BS to justify cheating and dishonesty.
"You use the force of government to make people talk."
The sad fact of the matter is that there are some dishonest people out there...ie Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers. The stock market was a hellhole before the 1929 crash and formation of the SEC shortly thereafter in 1934. The proper and relatively uniform disclosure of information has created a level of confidence in the market that has allowed trillions of additional dollars to be invested in new businesses over the years and has allowed more citizens to take part in the wealth of this nation.
"Example: I had $10,000. I could have: 1. bought 0.001% of some company. I'd make $0 profit annually, only earning when I sell the shares. The other 1M owners might know more or less than me. 2. bought 33% of a new business. I'd likely make 20% profits annually and have real control. 3. I'd loan the company from point 1 the money at 8%. Nowhere is disclosure needed. People who buy 0.001% shares deserve the beatings they get."
1. You make profit when you sell the shares. If it is a good company, it will make it worth your time to hold onto it for a little while before selling. Or you can invest in a company that pays annual dividends...there are thousands of choices. The other 1M owners will have access to the *exact* same information as you in the case of a public company and that equal level of knowledge is what's important. Everything you know about a public company is regurgitated from three sources: a) SEC filings b) company press releases c) analyst earnings estimates.
2. 33% is a minority interest. You need 51% or 67% to control a company, depending up the state of incorporation. You will have no control whatsoever...at most a 1/3 directorship position, but that is still a minority interest. You'll *expect* 20% profits annually but in the case of a new business you'll likely not see any returns for a few years. That, and most new businesses fail...but that's why you would expect a high rate of return in the first place.
3. Practically speaking, new businesses need a lot more than $10,000 and will settle on one lender (ie a bank) that can loan out the entire amount. Now maybe someone's sister-in-law's cousin's neighbor's friend of a friend starting a small home business will take your $10,000, but that's a helluva lotta risk for just 8%.
Disclosure is needed in all of the above cases. No rational person is going to invest in anything without knowing what they're getting into.
If most people were like that, they wouldn't have to give out little rewards and thank you gifts during pledge drives. Also, I'd rather my funds go directly to supporting this project than getting thrown into a general coffer that will get squandered by politicians.
I believe the idea is to make this laptop available to developed countries for about $200 to help subsidize the $100 to under developed and developing counties. I like that idea and would buy one just to help out.
"Insider trading shouldn't be illegal. I own corporations and the information I receive daily is very involved. There is nothing, though, that a stockholder couldn't learn by studying the market."
Based upon your statements, I don't think you quite understand what insider trading is. Insider trading should ABSOLUTELY be illegal. You are grossly misinformed about how much information is available to investors by "studying the market."
A free market works on the idea that everyone has ready access to the same information. In reality, this is not the case, and insider trading laws fix this to keep the playing field level.
There are lots of corporate executives and analysts that have access and insight to the goings-on of public companies well before the rest of the investing public. To buy or sell stock in the stock market with that knowledge is committing an act of fraud because the average investing public has no way whatsoever to access this information until there is a press release or quarterly report.
On a more concrete level, I do quite a bit of consulting work for various public companies and the heads of those companies. With the info that I'm given to do my assignments, I'm pretty much banned for life from buying the stocks of certain companies because I know too much ahead of time. I cannot, with a straight face, buy or sell certain stocks because the hypothetical seller or buyer with whom I make the trade is not aware of all the facts as I am. It would be just as crooked as knowingly selling someone a defective car and hiding the fact that you know it's broken.
"Just like blackmail laws, insider trading laws are attempting to stifle free expression."
You are not expressing anything when you're cheating people out of their money.
"I hate how people support the court here. I don't invest in stocks because I know it is a scam. Why would you?"
Slashdot Mirror
It's optimized for browsing pr0n, so I hear.
Even forgetting about the Sony rootkit debacle (although it was the nail in their coffin for me), I'd go with the 360 over the PS3 largely because of the online features. I have a PS2 now and every time I get a new online game, I have to go through another signup process and then, depending upon the age of the game, the publisher might not even be running a game server anymore. After that experience, I'm all for a *unified* online experience that brings together lots of gamers from lots of disciplines.
The fact that I can buy games through Live Arcade is a plus...I love the convenience of Steam and this should be at least as promising. In fact, the first thing I'm going to buy is Geometry Wars before even buying anything in a store.
Not too well; I think it is highly a specialized G5. OTOH, there was that article some time ago about a guy that was fired from MSFT for taking a photo of a bunch of G5 Powermacs being delivered to the Redmond campus.
Books *did* have EULAs in them in the early 20th century. The Supreme Court shot them down and thus established the doctrine of first sale.
Coca Cola Co., with all its might, couldn't outbid the sugar growers?
My mom and aunt are from the old country, but pronounce the end of it with a sht sound. Also, it's always home-made. In fact, that's the only type of borscht I've ever had. That and perogies, except for the ones at the Goldman Sachs cafeteria, which I think are at least hand made in the facility.
Russel Stover makes those. The jelly falls short in freshness vs jelly from a big glass jar, IMO.
The Universal Currency Convertor says: 1,000,000.00 Japan Yen = 8,295.719 USD.
I can already imagine J-list printing up a bunch of t-shirts that say "I'm a millionaire in Japan."
I got a 30" CRT HD set from CompUSA for $800 when they were clearing out their inventories of CRT-based TVs. I enjoy all the HD channels, but there's no way I'd spend more than what I did.
From what I understand by listening to the Word Nerds podcast, the OED is more of a "record" than a "source" on the English language. Now that may seem like splitting hairs, but the way it's put together is by delving into English-speaking cultures (there are several versions of the OED by region) and seeing how the people are using the language. In other words, it doesn't say, "this is how the English language is," but rather "this is how the English language is being used at this point in time and here are some examples of how it has been used at other points in time."
Apple didn't invent the word "podcast." As to what "should" or "should not" be part of a language, that wreaks of the same elitism that leads the French government to have a ministry of language. Language is what the people speak, period. Language is descriptive, not proscriptive.
"Publishers from Europe are complaining that Internet search engines are making money off their copyright-protected material. 'This is unlikely to be sustainable for publishers in the longer term.', says Francisco Pinto Balsemao, head of the European Publishers Council."
What a whiny little biatch. *Every* news outlet with an online presence has one of two choices:
1. Do not make your content openly accessible through the HTTP protocol and charge a fee.
2. Use robots.txt, which Google honours.
Until one of those two actions are taken, Francisco, you have FREELY VOLUNTEERED to offer your content to news aggregators and anyone with a web browser. This is a choice you can make *right now*, instead of complaining like a baby.
I would say that lack of compelling content will kill all but actual, "local radio." Where I live, radio stations like New Jersey 101.5 FM and WWFM, The Classical Network, provide me with up-to-date access to information I need to function in my community (snow closings, traffic info, local news and discussions). The big commercial stations don't give me anything I can't already get on my iPod. Satellite radio will have its heyday for a while because it's new and offers variety, but I can't see it surviving a revolution in nationwide, wireless internetworking (ie WiMax). When that happens, I think local radio will have already made the jump to internet broadcasting. In fact, the two stations I mentioned are already available via streaming through the net.
Uhm, the parent post said: "There is no honour in fighting, there is no glory. There is no good fight." So, yes, all those actions were wrong.
The shareholders that bought IPO shares don't have the vote...that is still held by the founders and employees. Google structured its IPO in this way to keep control where control belongs--in the hands of the people on the front lines running the company. That way they can run the company the way they see fit for the long term and not worry about quarterly jitters and having some assh0le financial investor shake-out management. There are quite a few public companies that are set up this way, actually.
Here's your answer: don't let "reality" dull your sense of imagination and fantasy and you won't have to worry about it.
"Or why didn't they at least make copies of it for a thousand other uses?"
Lest we forget CARR...and look how that turned out!
Adam-12 has been available in a compact, portable format for some time...as Viewmaster slide wheels! I think I even had a 33rpm record to go along with it.
Man, I hope these shows will be available in the German market...my AAPL stock will bust through the roof like KITT through a brick wall!
What an utter load of horseshit.
Gas taxes are a revenue figure. "Oil industry profits" are just that...profit, which is equal to revenue less expenses. Oil industry revenue would be the proper figure to look at...which are obviously more than the tax revenue. TFA loses all credibility in my view on that quote alone and appears to be a shill piece for people that don't know the difference between revenue and profit.
It's really nice of them to release a web-based service, but wouldn't the customers still be beholden to WMV files infected with DRM? They'll work fine when I'm using my work PC running Windows XP, but they're utterly useless on my iBook + iPod or my (admittedly little used) Ubuntu installation.
"No, a free market works with people making informed decisions and no one disclosing their information."
That's a contradictory statement. If no one discloses their information, then no one is making an informed decision. It just seems like your statement is trying to justify lying by omission.
"So? Why anyone would put capital into a business that they control 0.001% of is beyond me."
No one that is buying stock on the stock marketing is buying control and is aware that they are not buying control. People buy stock for either the dividends or capital appreciation. Moreover, it is very disturbing that your "So?" comment was in response to my statement that buying or selling stock on the open market with insider knowledge would amount to fraud. Your lack of understanding as to why people invest in stocks does not justify committing fraud.
"Stocks should be sold "as-is" just like cars. If you need guarantees, make a contract."
Sorry, no one has the right in the first place to knowingly defraud anyone. Again, all I'm reading from you is more BS to justify cheating and dishonesty.
"You use the force of government to make people talk."
The sad fact of the matter is that there are some dishonest people out there...ie Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers. The stock market was a hellhole before the 1929 crash and formation of the SEC shortly thereafter in 1934. The proper and relatively uniform disclosure of information has created a level of confidence in the market that has allowed trillions of additional dollars to be invested in new businesses over the years and has allowed more citizens to take part in the wealth of this nation.
"Example:
I had $10,000. I could have:
1. bought 0.001% of some company. I'd make $0 profit annually, only earning when I sell the shares. The other 1M owners might know more or less than me.
2. bought 33% of a new business. I'd likely make 20% profits annually and have real control.
3. I'd loan the company from point 1 the money at 8%.
Nowhere is disclosure needed. People who buy 0.001% shares deserve the beatings they get."
1. You make profit when you sell the shares. If it is a good company, it will make it worth your time to hold onto it for a little while before selling. Or you can invest in a company that pays annual dividends...there are thousands of choices. The other 1M owners will have access to the *exact* same information as you in the case of a public company and that equal level of knowledge is what's important. Everything you know about a public company is regurgitated from three sources: a) SEC filings b) company press releases c) analyst earnings estimates.
2. 33% is a minority interest. You need 51% or 67% to control a company, depending up the state of incorporation. You will have no control whatsoever...at most a 1/3 directorship position, but that is still a minority interest. You'll *expect* 20% profits annually but in the case of a new business you'll likely not see any returns for a few years. That, and most new businesses fail...but that's why you would expect a high rate of return in the first place.
3. Practically speaking, new businesses need a lot more than $10,000 and will settle on one lender (ie a bank) that can loan out the entire amount. Now maybe someone's sister-in-law's cousin's neighbor's friend of a friend starting a small home business will take your $10,000, but that's a helluva lotta risk for just 8%.
Disclosure is needed in all of the above cases. No rational person is going to invest in anything without knowing what they're getting into.
If most people were like that, they wouldn't have to give out little rewards and thank you gifts during pledge drives. Also, I'd rather my funds go directly to supporting this project than getting thrown into a general coffer that will get squandered by politicians.
I believe the idea is to make this laptop available to developed countries for about $200 to help subsidize the $100 to under developed and developing counties. I like that idea and would buy one just to help out.
"Insider trading shouldn't be illegal.
I own corporations and the information I receive daily is very involved. There is nothing, though, that a stockholder couldn't learn by studying the market."
Based upon your statements, I don't think you quite understand what insider trading is. Insider trading should ABSOLUTELY be illegal. You are grossly misinformed about how much information is available to investors by "studying the market."
A free market works on the idea that everyone has ready access to the same information. In reality, this is not the case, and insider trading laws fix this to keep the playing field level.
There are lots of corporate executives and analysts that have access and insight to the goings-on of public companies well before the rest of the investing public. To buy or sell stock in the stock market with that knowledge is committing an act of fraud because the average investing public has no way whatsoever to access this information until there is a press release or quarterly report.
On a more concrete level, I do quite a bit of consulting work for various public companies and the heads of those companies. With the info that I'm given to do my assignments, I'm pretty much banned for life from buying the stocks of certain companies because I know too much ahead of time. I cannot, with a straight face, buy or sell certain stocks because the hypothetical seller or buyer with whom I make the trade is not aware of all the facts as I am. It would be just as crooked as knowingly selling someone a defective car and hiding the fact that you know it's broken.
"Just like blackmail laws, insider trading laws are attempting to stifle free expression."
You are not expressing anything when you're cheating people out of their money.
"I hate how people support the court here. I don't invest in stocks because I know it
is a scam. Why would you?"
Because I know better.
Man, those splinters are going to be a bitch on her bloodstream!