Okay, so I tried to find a website for this Studio Roc place, and simply can't. Anyone have any suggestions?
Aside from that, I think this is really great. For the last seventy or so years, new buildings have been devoid of the beautiful, distinguishing sculptures that used to adorn every building out there--the columnades, the lions heads, the leafy designs, all that stuff that you only find on/around the ritziest places now. Hopefully we can get back to having architecture that's creative and beautiful rather than creative and hideous (that's MIT's Stata, designed by Frank Gehry, if you don't follow these things).
Interesting note: the bone to pick is actually with the "is" as opposed to a more correct "are." The way it's written, the only correct meaning is that the sale/advertisement/commercial/use IS illegal--that is, the singular "is" defines the set as one action, and so doing them together is illegal, but individually doesn't meet the judgement's criteria for illegality. If the judge had written "are," then it would be clear that the sale and adv. (et al) are illegal, whether done together or not. This is all regardless of whether there is an "or" or an "and."
Just thought you looked like a guy that cared about his grammar:)
Yeah, and I was worried about that one, but it definitely fell through, and good for ms that it did; SAP is very, very distant from what they are really good at. Complex crm implementations are not their bag!
I just won $100! I bet my buddy that they couldn't come up with a better investment than a direct financial return to stockholders, and I was right (he thought they were going to buy somebody big). The bet's been going since late winter when they announced they'd have a plan for their cash by mid-summer.
It really is a reflection of their growth prospects. Until now their stock value was still banking on a good deal of growth, and this announcement makes it clear that they probably won't achieve that.
Actually, an interesting stat is that something like only 15% of stock buyback approvals in major companies actually materialize into actual buybacks.
Singapore STILL has corporal punishment, and while the repeat offender rate is close to 7%, far lower than the US' repeat offender rate for comparable crimes (i.e. felonies) of roughly 70% (my stats are four-five years old, sorry), it's really because more than half the people who are caned for severe crimes are either killed or beaten to severe incapacity. Is that how you want to run a society?
I'm sorry, when you asked if this was a technology threat to google, did you mean to indicate that you'd tried the technology? I'm working on a project on the CRM industry right now and just tried a variety of searches in both blinkx and google, and blinkx was not only less relevant, but also way, way slower.
The company went public in 99, and the revenue restatement is for three years. This means that, in their opinion at least, they were not hyping their revenue potential during or following the IPO. Realize that there's a difference between saying "we can achieve X" and "we have achieved X." One is forward looking, and the way the market was going then, who knew? At least, it was acceptible to think that way. The other, though, is booking revenue that a reasonable audit would show is probably unavailable, either because of rebating, non-paying customers, etc, and then continuing to do it for three years.
In my opinion, good, let the lawyers sue them (even if I do like RHAT), but not because they were hyping their stock.
Nah, it was profits, but you have to realize that there's a great deal of cyclicity and seasonality in the chip market and everyone had higher-than-double expectations, which was why the stock was so high. That and the fact that the only up surprise and the most concentrated profit center was in mobile chips and not processors.
I definitely agree. Most people think consumer push drives things like this, but this will be driven both by consumers and by controlling media companies. Streaming video allows not only for copy-proofing, but also for up-to-the-second security against breaching in whatever copy-proofing methods are used in ten years. Good points, good points.
Yeah, and video on demand can do everything DVD does, too.
Look, I don't think DVDs will actually go away entirely. But I do think that 80-90% of movies will be consumed like that in the US, and somewhat less in less developed nations, somewhat more in europe.
I'm about a billion short too, but what he's saying is pretty damn true. Remember 1994? The internet was really only going mainstream then. Ten years ago. Think of everything that's happened since, and how utterly ubiquitous it is now in the US and developed nations, and even at accessible access points in less developed nations. Ten years is a long time, and with the developed market for TV DVDs (that is, DVDs of TV shows), the public has proven that there is a market for paying ahead of time for what they want, when they want. The cable companies want it too--if it weren't for TIVO's upswing in acceptence, comcast et al. would be ignoring DVRs in favour of VOD and companies like SeaChange would be ubiquitous already. Ten years is a long time for that to advance.
Recycle your used tech with 5R Processors! They are the nation's largest computer recyclers and put a lot of the tech to work either through refurbished sales or donations.
I think they probably won't put that much effort into it. That's really a franchise-building move, but morrowind only has rights to this one game, so I doubt they're that interested in a major undertaking like that. But, hopefully I'm completely wrong and we'll get to muck around in fallout like we could in NWN/morrowind.
Nope, I just read it, and I'm still right. He seems to think that the computer is not being used well in business. I'm an investment banker who works mostly with small software companies, and the process automation software industry (better known as BPM) is something I work in a lot. Companies can automate everything now more easily than ever and spend their time doing business rather than doing paperwork.
Moreover, Microsoft Excel is one of the most proliferated tools out there, and VERY few people use it solely to build financial statements without doing any sort of modeling along with it. Kay's quote "The chances that in the last week or year or month you've used the computer to simulate some interesting idea is zero--but that's what it's for" is bull.
Yeah, we could have a world with a few people owning computers and being creative and the rest carrying out boring, simple tasks because we're too stupid to automate them, or we could have a world where we automate all of the boring, stupid tasks and people can spend their time being creative.
Actually, that's a good point. I believe a Mcdonalds franchise fee can run upwards of $500k in certain locations, and I can't imagine that corporate doesn't make some profit on that, so you've definitely got me--cash flows can come from direct expansion (this can include licensing revenues from all sorts of products, actually). But, right on SBUX's site it says:
Q: Does Starbucks franchise? A: No, Starbucks does not franchise to individuals. However, in situations in which a master concessionaire or other company controls or can provide improved access to desirable retail space (such as an airport), the Company may consider licensing its operations to such a company.
Investment banking is completely different, depending on who you are and who you work for. I work for a tiny banking startup that does mostly software M&A, and I love it. I will pretty much never have to pull more than 70 hours a week, and I have a lot more authority than my peers in the big banks. Ha, actually, they don't have anything yet, because they're all still in classes learning how to read a financial statement (typically 4-6 weeks of education out of undergraduate school).
Nope, the (implied) subject of the sentence is "you" since it's imperative. Therefore the third person whose death you are assuring gets the 'm' treatment.
First, you say that people don't make money off dividends. There are trillions of dollars invested in the US in safe stocks and bonds by everyone from banks to insurance companies to mutual funds to companies like microsoft, and also a smaller amount by individual investors. These are people who need value and who have no room for tremendous drops in a security's price except in the rare occasion that they plan on holding a bond to maturity. Get that? Trillions. That's a lot of dollars, my friend.
Second, you say that people who make big money by big gains in stock prices make it at the expense of "lower tier" investors. I don't know exactly what you mean by that, but the stock market is not a zero sum game. If we both own shares of a company and it goes up, you're not making money at my expense. That's a pretty poor argument. If you mean money made at the expense of defrauded investors by the people who commit fraud, that's different, and it's a crime, and it'll have to stop or come to a head eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so I tried to find a website for this Studio Roc place, and simply can't. Anyone have any suggestions?
Aside from that, I think this is really great. For the last seventy or so years, new buildings have been devoid of the beautiful, distinguishing sculptures that used to adorn every building out there--the columnades, the lions heads, the leafy designs, all that stuff that you only find on/around the ritziest places now. Hopefully we can get back to having architecture that's creative and beautiful rather than creative and hideous (that's MIT's Stata, designed by Frank Gehry, if you don't follow these things).
Er, you're feeding their case, dude. We're all making the argument that there are plenty of legitimate uses here, remember?
Interesting note: the bone to pick is actually with the "is" as opposed to a more correct "are." The way it's written, the only correct meaning is that the sale/advertisement/commercial/use IS illegal--that is, the singular "is" defines the set as one action, and so doing them together is illegal, but individually doesn't meet the judgement's criteria for illegality. If the judge had written "are," then it would be clear that the sale and adv. (et al) are illegal, whether done together or not. This is all regardless of whether there is an "or" or an "and."
:)
Just thought you looked like a guy that cared about his grammar
I prefer the "Rayguns don't kill zorbians, zorbians kill zorbians" (classic far side)
Yeah, and I was worried about that one, but it definitely fell through, and good for ms that it did; SAP is very, very distant from what they are really good at. Complex crm implementations are not their bag!
I just won $100! I bet my buddy that they couldn't come up with a better investment than a direct financial return to stockholders, and I was right (he thought they were going to buy somebody big). The bet's been going since late winter when they announced they'd have a plan for their cash by mid-summer.
It really is a reflection of their growth prospects. Until now their stock value was still banking on a good deal of growth, and this announcement makes it clear that they probably won't achieve that.
Actually, an interesting stat is that something like only 15% of stock buyback approvals in major companies actually materialize into actual buybacks.
Singapore STILL has corporal punishment, and while the repeat offender rate is close to 7%, far lower than the US' repeat offender rate for comparable crimes (i.e. felonies) of roughly 70% (my stats are four-five years old, sorry), it's really because more than half the people who are caned for severe crimes are either killed or beaten to severe incapacity. Is that how you want to run a society?
I'm sorry, when you asked if this was a technology threat to google, did you mean to indicate that you'd tried the technology? I'm working on a project on the CRM industry right now and just tried a variety of searches in both blinkx and google, and blinkx was not only less relevant, but also way, way slower.
The company went public in 99, and the revenue restatement is for three years. This means that, in their opinion at least, they were not hyping their revenue potential during or following the IPO. Realize that there's a difference between saying "we can achieve X" and "we have achieved X." One is forward looking, and the way the market was going then, who knew? At least, it was acceptible to think that way. The other, though, is booking revenue that a reasonable audit would show is probably unavailable, either because of rebating, non-paying customers, etc, and then continuing to do it for three years.
In my opinion, good, let the lawyers sue them (even if I do like RHAT), but not because they were hyping their stock.
Nah, it was profits, but you have to realize that there's a great deal of cyclicity and seasonality in the chip market and everyone had higher-than-double expectations, which was why the stock was so high. That and the fact that the only up surprise and the most concentrated profit center was in mobile chips and not processors.
I definitely agree. Most people think consumer push drives things like this, but this will be driven both by consumers and by controlling media companies. Streaming video allows not only for copy-proofing, but also for up-to-the-second security against breaching in whatever copy-proofing methods are used in ten years. Good points, good points.
Yeah, and video on demand can do everything DVD does, too.
Look, I don't think DVDs will actually go away entirely. But I do think that 80-90% of movies will be consumed like that in the US, and somewhat less in less developed nations, somewhat more in europe.
Ahh, awesome. I just used them through the IT department I used to work at during college to dispose of old hardware.
I'm about a billion short too, but what he's saying is pretty damn true. Remember 1994? The internet was really only going mainstream then. Ten years ago. Think of everything that's happened since, and how utterly ubiquitous it is now in the US and developed nations, and even at accessible access points in less developed nations. Ten years is a long time, and with the developed market for TV DVDs (that is, DVDs of TV shows), the public has proven that there is a market for paying ahead of time for what they want, when they want. The cable companies want it too--if it weren't for TIVO's upswing in acceptence, comcast et al. would be ignoring DVRs in favour of VOD and companies like SeaChange would be ubiquitous already. Ten years is a long time for that to advance.
Yes, but they're also happier and less likely to go postal or embezzle from you ;)
Google is your friend. They mostly deal with corporations, though; it's not a "drop by with your computer after work" thing.
Recycle your used tech with 5R Processors! They are the nation's largest computer recyclers and put a lot of the tech to work either through refurbished sales or donations.
I think they probably won't put that much effort into it. That's really a franchise-building move, but morrowind only has rights to this one game, so I doubt they're that interested in a major undertaking like that. But, hopefully I'm completely wrong and we'll get to muck around in fallout like we could in NWN/morrowind.
Nope, I just read it, and I'm still right. He seems to think that the computer is not being used well in business. I'm an investment banker who works mostly with small software companies, and the process automation software industry (better known as BPM) is something I work in a lot. Companies can automate everything now more easily than ever and spend their time doing business rather than doing paperwork.
Moreover, Microsoft Excel is one of the most proliferated tools out there, and VERY few people use it solely to build financial statements without doing any sort of modeling along with it. Kay's quote "The chances that in the last week or year or month you've used the computer to simulate some interesting idea is zero--but that's what it's for" is bull.
Yeah, we could have a world with a few people owning computers and being creative and the rest carrying out boring, simple tasks because we're too stupid to automate them, or we could have a world where we automate all of the boring, stupid tasks and people can spend their time being creative.
Actually, that's a good point. I believe a Mcdonalds franchise fee can run upwards of $500k in certain locations, and I can't imagine that corporate doesn't make some profit on that, so you've definitely got me--cash flows can come from direct expansion (this can include licensing revenues from all sorts of products, actually). But, right on SBUX's site it says:
Q: Does Starbucks franchise?
A: No, Starbucks does not franchise to individuals. However, in situations in which a master concessionaire or other company controls or can provide improved access to desirable retail space (such as an airport), the Company may consider licensing its operations to such a company.
Investment banking is completely different, depending on who you are and who you work for. I work for a tiny banking startup that does mostly software M&A, and I love it. I will pretty much never have to pull more than 70 hours a week, and I have a lot more authority than my peers in the big banks. Ha, actually, they don't have anything yet, because they're all still in classes learning how to read a financial statement (typically 4-6 weeks of education out of undergraduate school).
Nope, the (implied) subject of the sentence is "you" since it's imperative. Therefore the third person whose death you are assuring gets the 'm' treatment.
A couple billion will give them a couple bucks each. Yeah, real big boost, there.
Parent is wrong. Loads of people get them simultaneously, so it's obviously not just some autogenerated function.
That's completely untrue in two respects.
First, you say that people don't make money off dividends. There are trillions of dollars invested in the US in safe stocks and bonds by everyone from banks to insurance companies to mutual funds to companies like microsoft, and also a smaller amount by individual investors. These are people who need value and who have no room for tremendous drops in a security's price except in the rare occasion that they plan on holding a bond to maturity. Get that? Trillions. That's a lot of dollars, my friend.
Second, you say that people who make big money by big gains in stock prices make it at the expense of "lower tier" investors. I don't know exactly what you mean by that, but the stock market is not a zero sum game. If we both own shares of a company and it goes up, you're not making money at my expense. That's a pretty poor argument. If you mean money made at the expense of defrauded investors by the people who commit fraud, that's different, and it's a crime, and it'll have to stop or come to a head eventually.