I worked for a company that was "attacked by" George. The company I worked for decided to take a "poison pill" rather than let Soros take over. In the end the BoD did exactly what Soros threatened to do, i.e. sell off most of the company that was unprofitable, but they took all the profits instead of George. I suspect that the stock holders of the company I worked for would have been much better off with Soros at the helm than our weasel CEO/BoD. BTW the CEO we had was also on the BoD of Enron. Surprise, surprise. Guess the company and CEO and win!!!
Is it so much to ask that you under stand two commonly used english words. 'Then' is a time. I will give you a swift kick in the nuts then. 'Than' compares to things. You will probably prefer a swift kick in the nuts to getting hot grits dumped down your pants. Understand? Learn it. Use it. Live it.
The fact of the matter is that the supply side of the bandwidth equation is that bandwidth is increasing and cost is falling rapidly. On the other side of the equation is that companies at the top of the bandwidth food chain are trying to increase profits even though the numbers don't support it. Enron isn't the only corp that is trying to make a mint in bad times thru questionable business practices.
So many of you are saying, "but my T1 costs a zillion dollars!" The problem with that argument is that band width has been dropping in price fast at the high levels of the inet. But they don't drop the price for suckers that are paying thru the ass for a T1. It's not that cable is underpriced, it's that a T1 is way way way over priced.
Why is it that the price of bandwidth is falling and yet prices for consumers aren't? Is it that consumers are increasing in bandwidth requirments faster than the infrastructure and increase? I know that my local ISP (modem) charges the same amount they did 5-7 years ago for access, but surely their costs must be dropping. Im sure that broadband is employing a similar strategy. More profits, less service. I get so tired of the clones screaming that corps are so beaten up.
... that this doesn't effect the Bond franchise at all. Not enough people will not rent (why buy) Bond movies to offset the people who have never seen an 007 movie and are curious because of gold member and rent. This is why this is a stupid issue, and not about protecting a brand.
If it was me I would would change the name to something more vague, like "14K bippy" or "Not Shaken, but a Little Stirred."
I have it on good authority that this new thrust into the security realm has been code named Project Sphincter. It will pinch off any attempt to probe your ports. Hopefully they are putting enough muscle into this endevore to block access to the internals of Windows OS. 0->*
Slashdot Mirror
I worked for a company that was "attacked by" George. The company I worked for decided to take a "poison pill" rather than let Soros take over. In the end the BoD did exactly what Soros threatened to do, i.e. sell off most of the company that was unprofitable, but they took all the profits instead of George. I suspect that the stock holders of the company I worked for would have been much better off with Soros at the helm than our weasel CEO/BoD. BTW the CEO we had was also on the BoD of Enron. Surprise, surprise. Guess the company and CEO and win!!!
Ha ha. What a luser.
Is it so much to ask that you under stand two commonly used english words. 'Then' is a time. I will give you a swift kick in the nuts then. 'Than' compares to things. You will probably prefer a swift kick in the nuts to getting hot grits dumped down your pants. Understand? Learn it. Use it. Live it.
The fact of the matter is that the supply side of the bandwidth equation is that bandwidth is increasing and cost is falling rapidly. On the other side of the equation is that companies at the top of the bandwidth food chain are trying to increase profits even though the numbers don't support it. Enron isn't the only corp that is trying to make a mint in bad times thru questionable business practices.
So many of you are saying, "but my T1 costs a zillion dollars!" The problem with that argument is that band width has been dropping in price fast at the high levels of the inet. But they don't drop the price for suckers that are paying thru the ass for a T1. It's not that cable is underpriced, it's that a T1 is way way way over priced.
Why is it that the price of bandwidth is falling and yet prices for consumers aren't? Is it that consumers are increasing in bandwidth requirments faster than the infrastructure and increase? I know that my local ISP (modem) charges the same amount they did 5-7 years ago for access, but surely their costs must be dropping. Im sure that broadband is employing a similar strategy. More profits, less service. I get so tired of the clones screaming that corps are so beaten up.
... that this doesn't effect the Bond franchise at all. Not enough people will not rent (why buy) Bond movies to offset the people who have never seen an 007 movie and are curious because of gold member and rent. This is why this is a stupid issue, and not about protecting a brand.
If it was me I would would change the name to something more vague, like "14K bippy" or "Not Shaken, but a Little Stirred."
I have it on good authority that this new thrust into the security realm has been code named Project Sphincter. It will pinch off any attempt to probe your ports. Hopefully they are putting enough muscle into this endevore to block access to the internals of Windows OS. 0->*