Then CraigsList shouldn't have issued 100% of the company at the initial offering - they should have issued a portion of the company as shares, and retained the rest as the company holding. Then, subsequent issuings can be made without diluting current holders share.
If they did issue 100% of the company, then CraigsList should have held a buy back to perform a reissue to new staff - that's precisely what my current employers recently did in order to give new Directors a share in the company.
Unless they had a *really* good reason to dilute current holders shares, CraigsList are in trouble here.
The customer base can want whatever they wish, but they are not entitled to anything - the owner is offering a certain set of terms, and some people are (in some cases rightly so) refusing those terms but taking anyway. That is where the buggy whip maker comparison breaks down, because they did not have to compete against their own product which has a zero cost factor. There is no way anyone could compete with that.
In the end, it call comes down to a sense of entitlement - if you don't like the terms of the product, go elsewhere. That removes any doubt.
And if you think piracy would simply disappear if the record company bowed down to DRM-less products in a lossless format, you are incredibly naive. The only point at which piracy would go away is when the original product is 100% free of any cost to the consumer.
Blacksmiths, buggy whip makers and all the other usual old time jobs that Slashdotters trot out each and every time they wish to denigrate a business case did not face competition from their own product being hawked with no requirement for any return on investment.
Here we go again with that word "steal". You only have these artificial rights to work you do because of government fiat, justified under a lot of shaky assumptions.
I would like to point out that all property law is artificial and only applicable because the Government offers protection under them to you. The only reason you can safely assume that more often than not your car will still be in the car park where you left it is because it is against an artificial law for another person to remove it from that spot without your permission (excluding certain situations).
The F-117 was literally the product of someone saying 'make an aircraft invisible to radar' at a time when computer modeling was at its youngest - the F-22 has a much smaller radar cross section than the F-117 but has more normal looks and capabilities because we can calculate surface characteristics better.
Oh, and the requirements were not meant to produce an all round well performer, it was originally intended to be a silver bullet style weapon, utterly deniable and operated by the CIA like both the U-2 and A-12 before it. Two weapons was all it needed for the missions intended, but it was eventually assigned to the USAF inventory for similar uses.
The USAF fleet underwent significant consolidation in the cold year wars, with some of the light to medium bombers roles being moved to the new heavier multirole fighters of the era, with great effect. Thats where the F-117 gets its fighter designation.
Enough said really, why should everything strive to be GPL compatible? I've often wondered this in the past when has its license suddenly decreed to be 'GPL incompatible' to a great outcry here on Slashdot, when at the same time the GPL itself doesn't strive for great compatibility with others.
No I didn't, thats why I *specifically* said that while it was a 'program failure' it was profitable for BA. British Airways could operate the aircraft successfully and profitably for 15 years until they became unprofitable and at that point BA retired them.
Uhm, actually both Airbus and Boeing use Windows as part of their Electronic Flight Bag, which is a completely isolated system - and neither Airbus nor Boeing has *ever* considered Windows for their flight control systems.
Windows is used quite extensively in the airline industry as part of quite a few IFE systems.
Typically the DoD sells war items for scrap under a license that specifically forbids the buyer from selling on any item whole or in part as a usable piece of equipment. There was an ex Blue Angels F-18 that made it to Ebay because the DoD had disposed of it in an irregular manner (legitimately, just not the normal way they did it) and they didn't get the buyer to sign the agreement. The F-14s are heavily scrutinised precisely because Iran still has active aircraft - the DoD went so far as to have several museum pieces removed from display and disposed of because of lax security.
Only while Airbus prices its aircraft in dollars (its studying a move to Euros) and while Airbus predominantly sources parts outside the dollar zone (the A350 will be built more than 50% in the dollar zone).
However, the weaker dollar is certainly going to harm Boeing - it pays all of its suppliers in dollars, regardless of their local currency, and there is a certain point at which the suppliers can no longer build the parts cost effectively with the dollar so devalued (they still need to pay their workforce and local suppliers in local currency, with the dollar nose-diving they get less local currency for their wares) - at that point, suppliers start telling Boeing to either cough up or go elsewhere.
Oh, in addition to my other post, this 18 month delay is not the whole story - Boeing has put back the 787-9 stretch to 2012 (around a 2 year delay from its original EIS date of 2010) and decided to not commit to a schedule for the the 787-3 short range variant, which was supposed to EIS before the -9.
What impact does this have? It drastically reduces the head start Boeing had over Airbuses closest comparable aircraft, the A350-800, from 4 years to 2 years (the A350-800 has an EIS of 2014), meaning suddenly the A350-800 becomes a much more palatable rival. This may cost Boeing sales in the long run.
This delay also pushes back Boeings production schedule a full two years - Boeing now has two years less production slots to sell, which will certainly cost them sales in the medium term.
But the biggest impact this will have is Boeing is not in a position to offer the 787-10 stretch, which airlines have been demanding for about a year now - Airbus will be able to offer a comparable product, the A350-900, in 2013 right after the 787-900 EIS. This will definitely cost Boeing sales.
Airbus on the other hand, are looking likely to deliver the A350 on time and within schedule - they have laid out a schedule which is almost double that which Boeing laid out for the 787 (7 years from industrial launch to EIS for the A350 verses 4 years from industrial launch to EIS for the 787). That padded schedule gives Airbus more breathing space.
From what I have read, its a design which does reduce the pressure wave but its too heavy for an airline to consider when talking about economics. When its weight comes down through use of next generation materials (further hybrids beyond CFRP), it may become economical to use.
Sound and fuel costs. We currently have no way of stopping the sonic boom caused by an aircraft, so flying over populated areas supersonic is completely out of the question, and designing an aircraft that can carry an economical number of people longhaul while traveling at supersonic speeds but also while not costing an arm and a leg to operate is not an easy feat - you have to use a tremendous amount of fuel to get to your cruise speed (fuel usage drops off quite sharply actually after around Mach 1.2 - the biggest fuel usage area is the Mach 0.95 - Mach 1.5 areas) and people are no longer willing to pay the sort of money that would take.
Its worth noting however, that Concorde, while a program failure, was quite profitable for British Airways in operation - at some points it was BAs most profitable area of operations across its entire business.
The A380 entered service for Singapore Airlines roughly 18 months late, with other airlines suffering between an 18 month and 22 month delay when they start receiving them later this year.
Airbuses delays were almost advantageous to the A380 however, since they were all post first flight and pre EIS (entry into service) - this allowed Airbus to iron out most of the issues a new type has when first put into service, with SQ having only three technical problems with their first three A380s in 6 months, which is a lot lower than other new types.
Boeing, however, are suffering their delays before they have even achieved the first 'power on' milestone in their first aircraft, and they are still relying on an uneventful flight test program to bring the aircraft in under the new schedule. This means that the 787 will probably still be subject to the usual new type issues with its first operators. And thats not even taking into account the possibility of *another* delay - which many in the industry are considering highly likely.
IIS rapidly lost that reputation after IIS 5 was released - it was rewritten practically from the ground upward and includes running as a non system account as standard.
Classically on a Windows box, if you compromise IIS you have root/admin access to the box and can do what you like. That's the point. I'm not saying it's impossible, the GP's point is that the Windows 'heritage' makes it more difficult and unintuitive. If you compromise IIS today (or at any time since IIS 5 was released), you get access to the Network Service account or to whatever account you ran that specific application as (you can run different application pools under different users).
I used to think IIS was totally insecure like you seem to think - that is until I educated myself and found otherwise.
Most system services in Windows XP, 2003 and 2008 (no idea about Vista as I have never used it) run either as an ordinary user account, 'Local Service' or 'Network Service' which grants specific rights much lower than an ordinary user.
Just to give an alternative experience to the above anecdotal experience - I have had nothing but positive experience with Paypal when someone emptied my account. I was left with several multi-thousand GBP charges on the Paypal account after someone somehow cracked my password (still not sure how they did it, I don't play fast and loose with my passwords).
Paypal not only had my account restored to its prior state within 2 weeks, they also credited me about 60GBP for the transactions which did manage to go through to my backend funding sources, (debit card and bank account transfers) for 'amounts lost in exchange rate fluctuations within the period in question' on top of the amount refunds themselves.
Now I am not saying people don't have bad Paypal experiences, but its worth noting that people also have good Paypal experiences.
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 6.2), which is enacted in UK law through membership of the Council of Europe.
I have just set both of those to your recommended settings, and it does partially work - however, it leaves me with only a single suggestion when I type a URL and not all matching URLs. It does not restore the functionality of the address bar from FF2.
This doesn't solve the problem - deleting 'ebay.co.uk' from the list seems to delete it from all lists, so it doesn't show up when I start typing 'eb'. Not a solution.
Problem with that is, for one example, when you have two 'favourite' websites that get used equally - one being Ebay, and one being your banks website. When I type 'online', I expect to see my banks website URL as the first choice (as it starts with 'online'), and yet the 'awesomebar' persists in putting Ebay as the first choice, because its the 'worlds online market place'.
I have *never* chosen Ebay in that instance, and yet it persists as the top choice in the list. Precisely the sort of behaviour that we are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Then CraigsList shouldn't have issued 100% of the company at the initial offering - they should have issued a portion of the company as shares, and retained the rest as the company holding. Then, subsequent issuings can be made without diluting current holders share.
If they did issue 100% of the company, then CraigsList should have held a buy back to perform a reissue to new staff - that's precisely what my current employers recently did in order to give new Directors a share in the company.
Unless they had a *really* good reason to dilute current holders shares, CraigsList are in trouble here.
The customer base can want whatever they wish, but they are not entitled to anything - the owner is offering a certain set of terms, and some people are (in some cases rightly so) refusing those terms but taking anyway. That is where the buggy whip maker comparison breaks down, because they did not have to compete against their own product which has a zero cost factor. There is no way anyone could compete with that.
In the end, it call comes down to a sense of entitlement - if you don't like the terms of the product, go elsewhere . That removes any doubt.
And if you think piracy would simply disappear if the record company bowed down to DRM-less products in a lossless format, you are incredibly naive. The only point at which piracy would go away is when the original product is 100% free of any cost to the consumer.
Blacksmiths, buggy whip makers and all the other usual old time jobs that Slashdotters trot out each and every time they wish to denigrate a business case did not face competition from their own product being hawked with no requirement for any return on investment.
Here we go again with that word "steal". You only have these artificial rights to work you do because of government fiat, justified under a lot of shaky assumptions.
I would like to point out that all property law is artificial and only applicable because the Government offers protection under them to you. The only reason you can safely assume that more often than not your car will still be in the car park where you left it is because it is against an artificial law for another person to remove it from that spot without your permission (excluding certain situations).There are no natural property rights.
The F-117 was literally the product of someone saying 'make an aircraft invisible to radar' at a time when computer modeling was at its youngest - the F-22 has a much smaller radar cross section than the F-117 but has more normal looks and capabilities because we can calculate surface characteristics better.
Oh, and the requirements were not meant to produce an all round well performer, it was originally intended to be a silver bullet style weapon, utterly deniable and operated by the CIA like both the U-2 and A-12 before it. Two weapons was all it needed for the missions intended, but it was eventually assigned to the USAF inventory for similar uses.
The USAF fleet underwent significant consolidation in the cold year wars, with some of the light to medium bombers roles being moved to the new heavier multirole fighters of the era, with great effect. Thats where the F-117 gets its fighter designation.
Enough said really, why should everything strive to be GPL compatible? I've often wondered this in the past when has its license suddenly decreed to be 'GPL incompatible' to a great outcry here on Slashdot, when at the same time the GPL itself doesn't strive for great compatibility with others.
No I didn't, thats why I *specifically* said that while it was a 'program failure' it was profitable for BA. British Airways could operate the aircraft successfully and profitably for 15 years until they became unprofitable and at that point BA retired them.
Uhm, actually both Airbus and Boeing use Windows as part of their Electronic Flight Bag, which is a completely isolated system - and neither Airbus nor Boeing has *ever* considered Windows for their flight control systems.
Windows is used quite extensively in the airline industry as part of quite a few IFE systems.
So quit with the FUD please.
Typically the DoD sells war items for scrap under a license that specifically forbids the buyer from selling on any item whole or in part as a usable piece of equipment. There was an ex Blue Angels F-18 that made it to Ebay because the DoD had disposed of it in an irregular manner (legitimately, just not the normal way they did it) and they didn't get the buyer to sign the agreement. The F-14s are heavily scrutinised precisely because Iran still has active aircraft - the DoD went so far as to have several museum pieces removed from display and disposed of because of lax security.
Only while Airbus prices its aircraft in dollars (its studying a move to Euros) and while Airbus predominantly sources parts outside the dollar zone (the A350 will be built more than 50% in the dollar zone).
However, the weaker dollar is certainly going to harm Boeing - it pays all of its suppliers in dollars, regardless of their local currency, and there is a certain point at which the suppliers can no longer build the parts cost effectively with the dollar so devalued (they still need to pay their workforce and local suppliers in local currency, with the dollar nose-diving they get less local currency for their wares) - at that point, suppliers start telling Boeing to either cough up or go elsewhere.
Oh, in addition to my other post, this 18 month delay is not the whole story - Boeing has put back the 787-9 stretch to 2012 (around a 2 year delay from its original EIS date of 2010) and decided to not commit to a schedule for the the 787-3 short range variant, which was supposed to EIS before the -9.
What impact does this have? It drastically reduces the head start Boeing had over Airbuses closest comparable aircraft, the A350-800, from 4 years to 2 years (the A350-800 has an EIS of 2014), meaning suddenly the A350-800 becomes a much more palatable rival. This may cost Boeing sales in the long run.
This delay also pushes back Boeings production schedule a full two years - Boeing now has two years less production slots to sell, which will certainly cost them sales in the medium term.
But the biggest impact this will have is Boeing is not in a position to offer the 787-10 stretch, which airlines have been demanding for about a year now - Airbus will be able to offer a comparable product, the A350-900, in 2013 right after the 787-900 EIS. This will definitely cost Boeing sales.
Airbus on the other hand, are looking likely to deliver the A350 on time and within schedule - they have laid out a schedule which is almost double that which Boeing laid out for the 787 (7 years from industrial launch to EIS for the A350 verses 4 years from industrial launch to EIS for the 787). That padded schedule gives Airbus more breathing space.
From what I have read, its a design which does reduce the pressure wave but its too heavy for an airline to consider when talking about economics. When its weight comes down through use of next generation materials (further hybrids beyond CFRP), it may become economical to use.
Sound and fuel costs. We currently have no way of stopping the sonic boom caused by an aircraft, so flying over populated areas supersonic is completely out of the question, and designing an aircraft that can carry an economical number of people longhaul while traveling at supersonic speeds but also while not costing an arm and a leg to operate is not an easy feat - you have to use a tremendous amount of fuel to get to your cruise speed (fuel usage drops off quite sharply actually after around Mach 1.2 - the biggest fuel usage area is the Mach 0.95 - Mach 1.5 areas) and people are no longer willing to pay the sort of money that would take.
Its worth noting however, that Concorde, while a program failure, was quite profitable for British Airways in operation - at some points it was BAs most profitable area of operations across its entire business.
The A380 entered service for Singapore Airlines roughly 18 months late, with other airlines suffering between an 18 month and 22 month delay when they start receiving them later this year.
Airbuses delays were almost advantageous to the A380 however, since they were all post first flight and pre EIS (entry into service) - this allowed Airbus to iron out most of the issues a new type has when first put into service, with SQ having only three technical problems with their first three A380s in 6 months, which is a lot lower than other new types.
Boeing, however, are suffering their delays before they have even achieved the first 'power on' milestone in their first aircraft, and they are still relying on an uneventful flight test program to bring the aircraft in under the new schedule. This means that the 787 will probably still be subject to the usual new type issues with its first operators. And thats not even taking into account the possibility of *another* delay - which many in the industry are considering highly likely.
Dunno if its what you are after, but have you tried HeidiSQL?
I used to think IIS was totally insecure like you seem to think - that is until I educated myself and found otherwise.
Most system services in Windows XP, 2003 and 2008 (no idea about Vista as I have never used it) run either as an ordinary user account, 'Local Service' or 'Network Service' which grants specific rights much lower than an ordinary user.
Paypal Europe is a regulated credit institution under Luxembourg law - it comes under most of the same rules as banks.
Just to give an alternative experience to the above anecdotal experience - I have had nothing but positive experience with Paypal when someone emptied my account. I was left with several multi-thousand GBP charges on the Paypal account after someone somehow cracked my password (still not sure how they did it, I don't play fast and loose with my passwords).
Paypal not only had my account restored to its prior state within 2 weeks, they also credited me about 60GBP for the transactions which did manage to go through to my backend funding sources, (debit card and bank account transfers) for 'amounts lost in exchange rate fluctuations within the period in question' on top of the amount refunds themselves.
Now I am not saying people don't have bad Paypal experiences, but its worth noting that people also have good Paypal experiences.
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 6.2), which is enacted in UK law through membership of the Council of Europe.
The fact that it doesn't behave as it used to - the behaviour has changed significantly and the work-arounds do not solve the issue completely.
I have just set both of those to your recommended settings, and it does partially work - however, it leaves me with only a single suggestion when I type a URL and not all matching URLs. It does not restore the functionality of the address bar from FF2.
This doesn't solve the problem - deleting 'ebay.co.uk' from the list seems to delete it from all lists, so it doesn't show up when I start typing 'eb'. Not a solution.
Problem with that is, for one example, when you have two 'favourite' websites that get used equally - one being Ebay, and one being your banks website. When I type 'online', I expect to see my banks website URL as the first choice (as it starts with 'online'), and yet the 'awesomebar' persists in putting Ebay as the first choice, because its the 'worlds online market place'.
I have *never* chosen Ebay in that instance, and yet it persists as the top choice in the list. Precisely the sort of behaviour that we are talking about.