I called my card company, and they said that I could dispute the charge and I'd get my money credited back once the dispute was settled. So, while I might not have to pay in the long run, it wouldn't do me any good in those few days I had to finish shopping.
Of course, they offered to extend my credit limit, but this would have been a Bad Thing(tm).
This holiday season, I had trouble with a couple of pretty established companies.
The one that pissed me off the most was Victoria's Secret (ordered some silk PJs for my girlfriend). I could understand that a company which has never been through a Xmas rush to be unprepared for the jump in volume, but VC's? They've been in the catalog business for ages.
That's why I was shocked with the lousy service. Specifically, they didn't send out my "Next Day" package until three days after I'd ordered it. I mean, if I order something before 10 AM their time and pay for Next Day service, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to get it shipped that day -- even the next day is understandible at this time of year, but three days? You gotta be kidding.
Anyhow, my point is that even companies who have been doing mail and phone order business for a long time screwed up this year. I find that a little bit shocking given the fact that you'd think that the net wouldn't change their volume of business that much, just the ordering method. Granted that I did order a bit late in the season (the 15th), but I needed my Xmas bonus to finish shopping.
In any event, I'm never shopping there again. Christmas would have been less stressful if I'd just gone to the mall on the 24th.
I had problems with several online shopping sites this year.
First, I placed an order at Toys 'R Us on the 9th and got screwed -- the package isn't here, but their idiot reps claim it was shipped on the 23rd. The problem is that I had to go out and buy the toys at the mall in the meantime, and I can't get the money credited back to my account until I send the stuff back.
Second, I ordered a Palm as another gift. The site popped up an error message when I tried to complete the transaction. I tried for hours to reach their customer service line, but it was constantly busy. It turns out that they billed my card and didn't send the damn thing -- yet more money suddenly unavailable to buy gifts with.
Finally I ordered some silk PJs from Victoria's Secret for my g/f. I paid for next day shipping, but they didn't get the package out the door for three fsck'ing days.
Each and every gift I tried to buy online got messed up in some way, and I ended up having to go to the mall for the toys and the Palm (the PJs made it at the last possible second). Overall, I'm really pissed off at the companies who dropped the ball -- only Toys 'R Us made any real attempt to make right with the situation.
I'm never buying off the Victoria's Secret site again -- in my book, if I pay for Next Day shipping and order before 10AM, the product better damn well be shipped that day, not a frickin' week later. Also, I'm sticking to large online sites for computer gear from now on -- the little places obviously don't have the manpower to handle a holiday rush if anything goes wrong with their website. I'll probably try shopping online again next year, but I'm going to buy extra early so I don't end up getting screwed over as badly as I did this year -- at this point, I'm looking at eating raman and walking to work (in Wisconsin in January) until the double-charges (Toys 'R Us and the place that charged to Palm without sending it) get taken off my stupid credit card.
Christmas would have been far less stressful if I'd just gone to the mall. There ought to be some kind of consumer protection law against what happened to me this year, especially V.S.'s "not really Next Day" shipping rip-off.
Okay, so I think we've established that everyone on/. thinks that the current situation down at the patent office is completely nuts, so...
If you were congress, who would you fix it? I've been playing around with law wordings in my head that would keep companies from accomplishing the monopolization of important ideas and concepts. The problem I'm having is that every bill I come up with in my head would also cause someone who came up with a truly unique service from patenting it (which is, of course, contrary to the whole idea of the patent system).
So, assuming that we're not out to destroy the patent system completely (and I know there are people out there who'd like too, but I think that's unrealistic), how would you legislate to stop abuses while still letting the reasonable patents get through?
There ought to be some major urges for tort reform, and I mean tort reform with punitive damages available. It makes me sick that deep-pocket corporations can use the high costs to the legal system to bully those annoying "citizens" who live in the country.
In the mean time, we've got to figure out a way to hurt these people without being juvenile about it (Script-kiddieing is not the way to go). Unfortunately, as EToys has pointed out, they don't really see an impact from our boycotts -- we're just not enough in the target audience.
I feel pretty helpless. If only we lived in a country where people had enough brain cells to take the system back from the corporate special interests that control it (but we don't). So many people vote straight tickets or for the candidate that promotes Jesus the most or whoever brings back the pork barrel programs, it just seems like intelligent people can't make any difference.
Well, I'm depressed now.
In case anyone does feel hopeful, here's my list of things that need to happen (in order):
Take away corporation's ability to interfere in elections. There's a bad Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to essentially buy candidates with "soft money" and the like.
Major tort reform: With punitive damages at the judge's discression. See above.
Pump money into the public schools: The smarter the populace, the more people who can think for themselves, the better. Better teachers, smaller school systems, smaller class sizes, more community involvement. This includes requiring decent alternative education choices for people who don't learn in the "conventional" way. While we're at it, get the fsck'ing corporations *out* of the school.
Start sending execs who break the law to prison: No fine will deter a major corporation from breaking the law. Sending the execs who cause said corporation to break the law will.
I could go on, but this post is long enough already. Suffice it to say: This bullshit will continue until America either breaks the hold of the corporations. The only alternative is revolution; CEOs everywhere should take notice that all the money in the world didn't protect, say, Nicholas II or Battista. In any event, we're (and I'm speaking to the non-Firsters, the non-trolls and the non-knee-jerk slashdotters, which disqualifies a lot of the people who port) the ones who will have to make the changes happen. I don't see it happening, and it makes me sad.
Look, you can argue that Red Hat is or isn't a good stock buy at this point, but you can not argue that it makes any sort of technical sense. Based on earnings, P/E and any other indicators you can imagine, Red Hat is a laughably overvalued stock. No amount of aggressive investments or aquisitions are going to be able to fix that.
The whole thing is going to come down hard. When it does, I worry that the whole Linux community will be discredited in the eyes of the business-types. I also worry that a lot of geeks (many of whom think they're somehow suddenly market gurus) are going to lose their shirts.
RMS did pretty much the same thing -- he refused any interest in some of the big Linux-related IPOs, even though it was offered to him.
What bothers me about this whole thing is that a lot of people, RMS included, are acting really high-and-mighty and ripping on people like ESR who made money in the last few weeks. Now, personally I think ESR's post-wealthy statement here was completely unneccesary and more than a little bit on the arrogant side, but it's still nobody elses business how you conduct your finances.
We all know that ESR made a bunch of money with VA, and I think that's really what counts. If we see him wearing "VA Linux Rulz U" shirts on the circuit from now on, we'll know why. The act of making money shouldn't put someone's credibility into question, it should be a question of if they sell out afterwards. Look at JWZ -- he must have made some money from Netscape; if I were unemployed this long, I'd be searching through garbage cans for tomorrow's meal. Despite this, he has still been wonderfully critical of the hand that feeds him.
That said, remember: Being a one of the three-initial gang never included a vow of poverty. If any of them want to take advantage of the opportunity to live comfortably for the rest of their lives, that's their business. We shouldn't sweat it; if it ends up effecting the way they act or if they start doing something stupid (mindless disto-specific boosting in public, etc), the same community which lends them credibility can take it away.
The basis of any arguement about artists/labels being screwed by MP3 and other digital technology is based on an out-of-date idea. The day when people payed for recordings is pretty much over -- it's being killed by easy, fast and "free" distribution over the internet. The genie's out of the bottle.
Bands needs to majorly refocus to fit this emerging paradigm. It's useless to flail and scream against the tide on this one -- look at the incredible resources of the RIAA and notice how inept they are at actually getting anything done.
The brief time in history when people would pay for recorded music is over.
The World is Not Enough was a good enough idea and had some really good points, but it was ruined by a couple of really low points:
Denise Richards: Man, is she hot. Man, she really can't act. I mean seriously, the idea of her being a nuclear scientist seemed like sarcasm. She delivered her lines so poorly I was beginning to wish they'd dubbed someone else's voice over hers.
Poorly Exploited Villain Gimmick: I expected them to do a bit more with a villain who didn't feel pain than to have him hold a hot rock and get a piece of glass stuck in his hand. I liked everything else about this villain other than this. I mean, have Bond blow off one of his arms and have him not give a rat's ass or something.
Silly Action Sequence: I won't be too specific here to avoid spoilers, but the helicopters were a bit much. Besides, I expected some more out of the car (which is usually the ultimate Bond gadget).
Good points: The last line of the movie had me chuckling to myself while I was driving home. The stunt with the boat in the opening action sequence made my jaw drop. The other females were good (even when they were bad). This is the first Bond villain who's ever really connected with the audience. If you absolutely must prepare for Q's retirement, John Cleese is as good a guy as any to fill that role.
Overall, not a bad movie, but definately not one of the better ones and not one which will help Pierce approach Connery's still-definitive Bond.
Dogma probably would have been better if they'd worked on the ending a bit. Kevin Smith had a great all-time film going in the first half of the film, but it seemed to really die off just after the slaughter at Disne^H^H^H^H the Golden Calf company. The action at the end seemed particularly poorly done, and I thought the Metadrone's comments while God was ressurecting whaz-'er-name to be especially corny.
Don't get me wrong, it was still a pretty darn good movie, but it just wasn't as good as it could have been.
As per geek orientation: I think this movie scores more points in that catagory than you give it credit for. Begin with the fact that many geeks (probably more than in the general population) despise the whole "blind faith" thing -- the average geek recognizes, for example, that people in Kansas are a bunch of bumkins for banning Darwin in the schools. The part about valuing ideas over faith made me smile.
Additionally, there are a lot of geeks who are into the whole mythology (and I know She hates it wen you use that word) thing. How many of us played D&D when we were kids? How many of us used to try to point out the infamous International Date-Line Loophole in the catholic dogma? How many of us (and I realize that this may be a bit of a departure) like to see Selma Hyak in her underwear?
Besides, who other than a geek is going to find Silent Bob's one-line-per-movie Movie Quotes that funny? (A guy in front of me at the theatre didn' get "No Ticket.")
Not necessarily carbon-based, but in all fairness carbon is going to be the most likey basis element for life (as we know it, anyhow) -- its chemical properties just give it some overwhelming advantages. Silicon isn't far off, but carbon looks better.
What sort of bothers me about this article is the emphesis placed on the idea that the planets are in the right zone to bear life as we know it.
I think the concentration ought to be on looking for life elsewhere in our solar system, be it past or present. If we do find life on, say, Europa, it'd be a pretty good indication that the Universe belongs to life. Then we could say that these new planets are likely habitation zones. If all our system's candidates turn out as dead as Salt Lake City on a Friday night, then we shrug and keep looking.
I find it ironic that we live in a "modern" age, complete with space flight, and we can't even work up the energy to send serious missions to the most likely close-by homes of extraterrestrial life. I mean, imagine people looking back at the 20th century and snickering over our "life vs. empty universe" debate when the proof lay so close at hand...
This isn't too shocking to me. You see a lot of people like this in really competetive industries -- they seem to assume that the consumer is both stupid and completely irrelevant.
My question is, how much longer will this moron be rotfl with his company completely discredited like this? I mean, to get mentions on all the gamer sites about this has got to be absolutely devestating to their chances at marketing this product (or, for that matter, any other).
This does rank as an important object lesson about believing what anonymous sources have to say, however.
Man, it's BS until it's completely unregulated. The current US system is so completely harebrained that it could only have been dreamed up by politicians.
Someone needs to just open a Strong Encryption company outside the US (Mexico? That's where I'd put the factory anyhow) and start mass-shipping crypto-enabled software and phones to the US.
Of course, it's all for naught -- quantum encryption means that they'll have to mass deploy cranial implants to be sure of what I'm up to.
Just released a Linux distro that everyone seems to agree is the easiest ever to install and use. Will be using that distro to try and create a market for their Office Suite (which they will actually sell for, ya know, money). So, not only do they have a pretty keen distribution, a currently profitable business and a stock of desktop apps with recognizable names like "QuatroPro" and "Word Perfect", but they also have a plan for making actual money with their Linux distro. Now, to be fair, their CEO is also facing insider trading charges and they've had serious debt problems in the past. Until this year, they were not routinely profitable. We can assume that investor confidence is still somewhat rightly on the low side.
Sane Target Price: $22, up to $30 or $35 as confidence is re-earned and sales rise.
Now, let's be realistic. Their Linux has only been out a few days, and they've already risen something like 50%. But, it doesn't say "Linux" in their business plan and they aren't losing money! Worst yet, a couple of Wall St. firms said a year ago that they're between a "Sell" and a "Hold"! And, oh no! They're not a dubious IPO! Stay away from that sucker! And pass the crack! Quick!
Probable Target Price: $14
Seriously, though, Corel's not a bad long term buy (you Wall St. newbies understand "Long Term", right? It means you don't treat Wall St. like it was a roulette wheel). It seems to me that they've gotten past their debt problems and that Cowpland will probably beat the insider trading charges.
Most importantly, however, is that Corel isn't (yet) an insanely over-valued tech stock. You must know that this sort of thing can't go on forever -- companies that have never made money and who are facing at best razor-thin profits are not safe long-term buys.
From one point of view, they're the oldest Linux OEM out there. They have pretty good sales and a decently growning market. On the other hand, they only sell Linux boxes. Because of this, they're missing out on a majority of the desktop and server markets.
Sane target price: $25.
Now, let's be realistic. They have the word "Linux" tied to their business plan, and every daytrader out there knows that Linux == Gold. I mean, look at RHAT (closed at 143 3/4) and COBT (129 1/2). Money money money money! Get rich quick! Buy now! The market will never go down, ever! Quick! Pass the crack!
Well, maybe Dell and Gateway don't overclock PCs, but there are a lot of little local PC shops that do.
I'm not sure why, but there are an awful lot of really crooked people who run local PC sale/repair places -- it's as bad as trying to locate an honest mechanic. It's probably for the same reason; more people don't really understand either of 'em to any real depth.
I was in our scummy local place (needed an ethernet card Right Now) and I actually saw a PC being marketed as a 500 Mhz, and down the tag a bit it said "Clock Speed Increased for Maximum Performance". It made me sick 'cause I could see my folks dropping $2000 and getting screwed by these kind of scumballs.
Is there some kind of 800 number you can call to report this sort of thing? Hell, is it even against the law?
I agree here. It wouldn't kill anyone to run everything through a simple Perl script that would tidy the texts up a bit and make them a bit easier on the eyes. It's not as if you have to burn the ASCii copy to make a HTML-formatted version available.
What I'd really like to see, however, are versions that take advantage of hyperlinking. I once saw a HTML copy of Dante's Inferno which was fully linked up with an in-depth annotation which explained references and other aspects of the work which I would have missed unless I'd taken a class about the book. It was incredibly useful; it still stands out in my mind as the most incredible thing I'd ever seen done to a book. It let me understand Dante in a way I couldn't have otherwise.
HTML and Palm-formatted versions would be great. Again, it's not like they have to ditch the plaintext version to provide others.
The Project needs to focus on being easier to use. A sort of "Avant Go"-ish interface where I could select a text online and have it sync to my Pilot without my having to think about anything would be a good start. I mean, I know I can put these texts onto my Palm, but I want it to be really easy.
If getting more users is really as important to them as getting more texts online (and there really isn't an awe-inspiring amount there yet, so far as I can tell), then they need to be able to pass the mom test (you know, could my mom use it?). I mean, I really *like* having a book on my Pilot at all times -- it saves me in situations where I'm unexpectantly bored. I'd bet I'm not the only one. PG needs to cater to this.
I been on this site and read all the commets for awhile and it seem to me whenever something like this: Corel have Linux. People will start to jump allover it and cheer for it and say stuff like buy Corel now before it's too late.
This is less a result of blind and consuming Linux advocacy than it is blind and consuming greed. Look, at this moment in history, Linux == Gold on Wall St. So long as that's the case, some of us will try to make money from it and get out before the bottom drops out.
Look at me; if Corel gets to $30, I can buy my next car with cash.
Awright! Corel's stock is up about 13% as we speak. This makes me very happy.
As for the product: I'm excited about having a company focus soley on getting Linux to the desktop instead of as a server OS. Of course, its really in Corel's best interest to do so; if they can pull off the expansion of Linux into this market, they'll be primed to leverage their real money-makers in that market they'll have created.
We've already seen that people like to by all their products from a single source (MS with Windows and the Office suite), so hopefully Corel will be able to breathe new life into some old names: WordPerfect, Paradox, etc.
As for the market, we'll see how they react to the product launch today after closing and Cowpland's speech tomorrow.
I mean, Corel's getting ready to provide a desktop operating system and a complete office software package. Does that make them like Microsoft?
Actually, it's a good idea to become a one-stop. It means that your customers can come to you for all their needs and be confident that all of your particular configurations will work smoothly together out of the box. That's why OEMs who sell the OS and their hardware seperately never caught on.
This is a case of seeing the best road and taking it. If you have to emulate the way MS does something (so long as its not something like RedHat crushing Debian by threatening OEMs), so be it -- the MS folks are obviously bang-up business guys; they didn't make their money by being good coders.
Additionally: Stop comparing Red Hat to Microsoft. RH is in a position where they could start bullying, but they don't. They deserve some sort of recognition for that, not more flames. Just because you're the biggest kid on the block doesn't automatically make you a bully.
Consider that there continues to be no open-source alternative at the strength and dependibility of the RSA product. Consider also that this is an area key to the viability of Linux as a serious alternative operating system.
In other words, consider this a stopgap. I've noticed that OSS is normally better than the proprietary alternatives and can evolve at a staggering rate (witness KDE and Gnome), but they don't always do so. So, in order to not be viewed as falling behind, we need to get something in place until the OSS products catch up.
It's also worth considering that commercial software is a good solution is some cases (note: this is not necessarily one of them). For example, the OSS paradigm has yet to produce a really killer game (except, of course, xBill), a good set of office applications or a competetive financial app (yeah, I know, GNUCash. It doesn't hold a candle to MS Money).
Free software is a good development alternative because the end products are generally superior. I pride myself on being able to choose the superior solution, both for myself and for the people I work or consult for. Red Hat's partnering with RSA and use of their product puts them at the head of the pack, and that's what really counts.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, they offered to extend my credit limit, but this would have been a Bad Thing(tm).
----
The one that pissed me off the most was Victoria's Secret (ordered some silk PJs for my girlfriend). I could understand that a company which has never been through a Xmas rush to be unprepared for the jump in volume, but VC's? They've been in the catalog business for ages.
That's why I was shocked with the lousy service. Specifically, they didn't send out my "Next Day" package until three days after I'd ordered it. I mean, if I order something before 10 AM their time and pay for Next Day service, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to get it shipped that day -- even the next day is understandible at this time of year, but three days? You gotta be kidding.
Anyhow, my point is that even companies who have been doing mail and phone order business for a long time screwed up this year. I find that a little bit shocking given the fact that you'd think that the net wouldn't change their volume of business that much, just the ordering method. Granted that I did order a bit late in the season (the 15th), but I needed my Xmas bonus to finish shopping.
In any event, I'm never shopping there again. Christmas would have been less stressful if I'd just gone to the mall on the 24th.
----
First, I placed an order at Toys 'R Us on the 9th and got screwed -- the package isn't here, but their idiot reps claim it was shipped on the 23rd. The problem is that I had to go out and buy the toys at the mall in the meantime, and I can't get the money credited back to my account until I send the stuff back.
Second, I ordered a Palm as another gift. The site popped up an error message when I tried to complete the transaction. I tried for hours to reach their customer service line, but it was constantly busy. It turns out that they billed my card and didn't send the damn thing -- yet more money suddenly unavailable to buy gifts with.
Finally I ordered some silk PJs from Victoria's Secret for my g/f. I paid for next day shipping, but they didn't get the package out the door for three fsck'ing days.
Each and every gift I tried to buy online got messed up in some way, and I ended up having to go to the mall for the toys and the Palm (the PJs made it at the last possible second). Overall, I'm really pissed off at the companies who dropped the ball -- only Toys 'R Us made any real attempt to make right with the situation.
I'm never buying off the Victoria's Secret site again -- in my book, if I pay for Next Day shipping and order before 10AM, the product better damn well be shipped that day, not a frickin' week later. Also, I'm sticking to large online sites for computer gear from now on -- the little places obviously don't have the manpower to handle a holiday rush if anything goes wrong with their website. I'll probably try shopping online again next year, but I'm going to buy extra early so I don't end up getting screwed over as badly as I did this year -- at this point, I'm looking at eating raman and walking to work (in Wisconsin in January) until the double-charges (Toys 'R Us and the place that charged to Palm without sending it) get taken off my stupid credit card.
Christmas would have been far less stressful if I'd just gone to the mall. There ought to be some kind of consumer protection law against what happened to me this year, especially V.S.'s "not really Next Day" shipping rip-off.
----
If you were congress, who would you fix it? I've been playing around with law wordings in my head that would keep companies from accomplishing the monopolization of important ideas and concepts. The problem I'm having is that every bill I come up with in my head would also cause someone who came up with a truly unique service from patenting it (which is, of course, contrary to the whole idea of the patent system).
So, assuming that we're not out to destroy the patent system completely (and I know there are people out there who'd like too, but I think that's unrealistic), how would you legislate to stop abuses while still letting the reasonable patents get through?
----
There ought to be some major urges for tort reform, and I mean tort reform with punitive damages available. It makes me sick that deep-pocket corporations can use the high costs to the legal system to bully those annoying "citizens" who live in the country.
In the mean time, we've got to figure out a way to hurt these people without being juvenile about it (Script-kiddieing is not the way to go). Unfortunately, as EToys has pointed out, they don't really see an impact from our boycotts -- we're just not enough in the target audience.
I feel pretty helpless. If only we lived in a country where people had enough brain cells to take the system back from the corporate special interests that control it (but we don't). So many people vote straight tickets or for the candidate that promotes Jesus the most or whoever brings back the pork barrel programs, it just seems like intelligent people can't make any difference.
Well, I'm depressed now.
In case anyone does feel hopeful, here's my list of things that need to happen (in order):
Take away corporation's ability to interfere in elections. There's a bad Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to essentially buy candidates with "soft money" and the like.
Major tort reform: With punitive damages at the judge's discression. See above.
Pump money into the public schools: The smarter the populace, the more people who can think for themselves, the better. Better teachers, smaller school systems, smaller class sizes, more community involvement. This includes requiring decent alternative education choices for people who don't learn in the "conventional" way. While we're at it, get the fsck'ing corporations *out* of the school.
Start sending execs who break the law to prison: No fine will deter a major corporation from breaking the law. Sending the execs who cause said corporation to break the law will.
I could go on, but this post is long enough already. Suffice it to say: This bullshit will continue until America either breaks the hold of the corporations. The only alternative is revolution; CEOs everywhere should take notice that all the money in the world didn't protect, say, Nicholas II or Battista. In any event, we're (and I'm speaking to the non-Firsters, the non-trolls and the non-knee-jerk slashdotters, which disqualifies a lot of the people who port) the ones who will have to make the changes happen. I don't see it happening, and it makes me sad.
----
----
Look, you can argue that Red Hat is or isn't a good stock buy at this point, but you can not argue that it makes any sort of technical sense. Based on earnings, P/E and any other indicators you can imagine, Red Hat is a laughably overvalued stock. No amount of aggressive investments or aquisitions are going to be able to fix that.
The whole thing is going to come down hard. When it does, I worry that the whole Linux community will be discredited in the eyes of the business-types. I also worry that a lot of geeks (many of whom think they're somehow suddenly market gurus) are going to lose their shirts.
Geeks without shirts can be downright ugly.
----
----
What bothers me about this whole thing is that a lot of people, RMS included, are acting really high-and-mighty and ripping on people like ESR who made money in the last few weeks. Now, personally I think ESR's post-wealthy statement here was completely unneccesary and more than a little bit on the arrogant side, but it's still nobody elses business how you conduct your finances.
We all know that ESR made a bunch of money with VA, and I think that's really what counts. If we see him wearing "VA Linux Rulz U" shirts on the circuit from now on, we'll know why. The act of making money shouldn't put someone's credibility into question, it should be a question of if they sell out afterwards. Look at JWZ -- he must have made some money from Netscape; if I were unemployed this long, I'd be searching through garbage cans for tomorrow's meal. Despite this, he has still been wonderfully critical of the hand that feeds him.
That said, remember: Being a one of the three-initial gang never included a vow of poverty. If any of them want to take advantage of the opportunity to live comfortably for the rest of their lives, that's their business. We shouldn't sweat it; if it ends up effecting the way they act or if they start doing something stupid (mindless disto-specific boosting in public, etc), the same community which lends them credibility can take it away.
----
Bands needs to majorly refocus to fit this emerging paradigm. It's useless to flail and scream against the tide on this one -- look at the incredible resources of the RIAA and notice how inept they are at actually getting anything done.
The brief time in history when people would pay for recorded music is over.
----
Denise Richards: Man, is she hot. Man, she really can't act. I mean seriously, the idea of her being a nuclear scientist seemed like sarcasm. She delivered her lines so poorly I was beginning to wish they'd dubbed someone else's voice over hers.
Poorly Exploited Villain Gimmick: I expected them to do a bit more with a villain who didn't feel pain than to have him hold a hot rock and get a piece of glass stuck in his hand. I liked everything else about this villain other than this. I mean, have Bond blow off one of his arms and have him not give a rat's ass or something.
Silly Action Sequence: I won't be too specific here to avoid spoilers, but the helicopters were a bit much. Besides, I expected some more out of the car (which is usually the ultimate Bond gadget).
Good points: The last line of the movie had me chuckling to myself while I was driving home. The stunt with the boat in the opening action sequence made my jaw drop. The other females were good (even when they were bad). This is the first Bond villain who's ever really connected with the audience. If you absolutely must prepare for Q's retirement, John Cleese is as good a guy as any to fill that role.
Overall, not a bad movie, but definately not one of the better ones and not one which will help Pierce approach Connery's still-definitive Bond.
----
Don't get me wrong, it was still a pretty darn good movie, but it just wasn't as good as it could have been.
As per geek orientation: I think this movie scores more points in that catagory than you give it credit for. Begin with the fact that many geeks (probably more than in the general population) despise the whole "blind faith" thing -- the average geek recognizes, for example, that people in Kansas are a bunch of bumkins for banning Darwin in the schools. The part about valuing ideas over faith made me smile.
Additionally, there are a lot of geeks who are into the whole mythology (and I know She hates it wen you use that word) thing. How many of us played D&D when we were kids? How many of us used to try to point out the infamous International Date-Line Loophole in the catholic dogma? How many of us (and I realize that this may be a bit of a departure) like to see Selma Hyak in her underwear?
Besides, who other than a geek is going to find Silent Bob's one-line-per-movie Movie Quotes that funny? (A guy in front of me at the theatre didn' get "No Ticket.")
----
Besides, look how well its working out on earth.
----
I think the concentration ought to be on looking for life elsewhere in our solar system, be it past or present. If we do find life on, say, Europa, it'd be a pretty good indication that the Universe belongs to life. Then we could say that these new planets are likely habitation zones. If all our system's candidates turn out as dead as Salt Lake City on a Friday night, then we shrug and keep looking.
I find it ironic that we live in a "modern" age, complete with space flight, and we can't even work up the energy to send serious missions to the most likely close-by homes of extraterrestrial life. I mean, imagine people looking back at the 20th century and snickering over our "life vs. empty universe" debate when the proof lay so close at hand...
----
My question is, how much longer will this moron be rotfl with his company completely discredited like this? I mean, to get mentions on all the gamer sites about this has got to be absolutely devestating to their chances at marketing this product (or, for that matter, any other).
This does rank as an important object lesson about believing what anonymous sources have to say, however.
----
Someone needs to just open a Strong Encryption company outside the US (Mexico? That's where I'd put the factory anyhow) and start mass-shipping crypto-enabled software and phones to the US.
Of course, it's all for naught -- quantum encryption means that they'll have to mass deploy cranial implants to be sure of what I'm up to.
----
Just released a Linux distro that everyone seems to agree is the easiest ever to install and use. Will be using that distro to try and create a market for their Office Suite (which they will actually sell for, ya know, money). So, not only do they have a pretty keen distribution, a currently profitable business and a stock of desktop apps with recognizable names like "QuatroPro" and "Word Perfect", but they also have a plan for making actual money with their Linux distro. Now, to be fair, their CEO is also facing insider trading charges and they've had serious debt problems in the past. Until this year, they were not routinely profitable. We can assume that investor confidence is still somewhat rightly on the low side.
Sane Target Price: $22, up to $30 or $35 as confidence is re-earned and sales rise.
Now, let's be realistic. Their Linux has only been out a few days, and they've already risen something like 50%. But, it doesn't say "Linux" in their business plan and they aren't losing money! Worst yet, a couple of Wall St. firms said a year ago that they're between a "Sell" and a "Hold"! And, oh no! They're not a dubious IPO! Stay away from that sucker! And pass the crack! Quick!
Probable Target Price: $14
Seriously, though, Corel's not a bad long term buy (you Wall St. newbies understand "Long Term", right? It means you don't treat Wall St. like it was a roulette wheel). It seems to me that they've gotten past their debt problems and that Cowpland will probably beat the insider trading charges.
Most importantly, however, is that Corel isn't (yet) an insanely over-valued tech stock. You must know that this sort of thing can't go on forever -- companies that have never made money and who are facing at best razor-thin profits are not safe long-term buys.
----
From one point of view, they're the oldest Linux OEM out there. They have pretty good sales and a decently growning market. On the other hand, they only sell Linux boxes. Because of this, they're missing out on a majority of the desktop and server markets.
Sane target price: $25.
Now, let's be realistic. They have the word "Linux" tied to their business plan, and every daytrader out there knows that Linux == Gold. I mean, look at RHAT (closed at 143 3/4) and COBT (129 1/2). Money money money money! Get rich quick! Buy now! The market will never go down, ever! Quick! Pass the crack!
Probably Target Price: $165
It's a sick, sick world.
----
I'm not sure why, but there are an awful lot of really crooked people who run local PC sale/repair places -- it's as bad as trying to locate an honest mechanic. It's probably for the same reason; more people don't really understand either of 'em to any real depth.
I was in our scummy local place (needed an ethernet card Right Now) and I actually saw a PC being marketed as a 500 Mhz, and down the tag a bit it said "Clock Speed Increased for Maximum Performance". It made me sick 'cause I could see my folks dropping $2000 and getting screwed by these kind of scumballs.
Is there some kind of 800 number you can call to report this sort of thing? Hell, is it even against the law?
----
What I'd really like to see, however, are versions that take advantage of hyperlinking. I once saw a HTML copy of Dante's Inferno which was fully linked up with an in-depth annotation which explained references and other aspects of the work which I would have missed unless I'd taken a class about the book. It was incredibly useful; it still stands out in my mind as the most incredible thing I'd ever seen done to a book. It let me understand Dante in a way I couldn't have otherwise.
HTML and Palm-formatted versions would be great. Again, it's not like they have to ditch the plaintext version to provide others.
----
If getting more users is really as important to them as getting more texts online (and there really isn't an awe-inspiring amount there yet, so far as I can tell), then they need to be able to pass the mom test (you know, could my mom use it?). I mean, I really *like* having a book on my Pilot at all times -- it saves me in situations where I'm unexpectantly bored. I'd bet I'm not the only one. PG needs to cater to this.
----
This is less a result of blind and consuming Linux advocacy than it is blind and consuming greed. Look, at this moment in history, Linux == Gold on Wall St. So long as that's the case, some of us will try to make money from it and get out before the bottom drops out.
Look at me; if Corel gets to $30, I can buy my next car with cash.
----
As for the product: I'm excited about having a company focus soley on getting Linux to the desktop instead of as a server OS. Of course, its really in Corel's best interest to do so; if they can pull off the expansion of Linux into this market, they'll be primed to leverage their real money-makers in that market they'll have created.
We've already seen that people like to by all their products from a single source (MS with Windows and the Office suite), so hopefully Corel will be able to breathe new life into some old names: WordPerfect, Paradox, etc.
As for the market, we'll see how they react to the product launch today after closing and Cowpland's speech tomorrow.
----
Actually, it's a good idea to become a one-stop. It means that your customers can come to you for all their needs and be confident that all of your particular configurations will work smoothly together out of the box. That's why OEMs who sell the OS and their hardware seperately never caught on.
This is a case of seeing the best road and taking it. If you have to emulate the way MS does something (so long as its not something like RedHat crushing Debian by threatening OEMs), so be it -- the MS folks are obviously bang-up business guys; they didn't make their money by being good coders.
Additionally: Stop comparing Red Hat to Microsoft. RH is in a position where they could start bullying, but they don't. They deserve some sort of recognition for that, not more flames. Just because you're the biggest kid on the block doesn't automatically make you a bully.
----
Consider that there continues to be no open-source alternative at the strength and dependibility of the RSA product. Consider also that this is an area key to the viability of Linux as a serious alternative operating system.
In other words, consider this a stopgap. I've noticed that OSS is normally better than the proprietary alternatives and can evolve at a staggering rate (witness KDE and Gnome), but they don't always do so. So, in order to not be viewed as falling behind, we need to get something in place until the OSS products catch up.
It's also worth considering that commercial software is a good solution is some cases (note: this is not necessarily one of them). For example, the OSS paradigm has yet to produce a really killer game (except, of course, xBill), a good set of office applications or a competetive financial app (yeah, I know, GNUCash. It doesn't hold a candle to MS Money).
Free software is a good development alternative because the end products are generally superior. I pride myself on being able to choose the superior solution, both for myself and for the people I work or consult for. Red Hat's partnering with RSA and use of their product puts them at the head of the pack, and that's what really counts.
----