Intangible assets such as subscriber base don't really factor into the value of a company since they are impossible to measure. Just ask Reader's Digest.
It's been a long time since I've had problems with Firefox not rendering a page properly. It's also been a long time since I had stability issues with Windows. I use Firefox on Windows because I think it is the best user experience for what I do and then security.
Combined with anonymous call blocking I get pretty much no solicitation calls. Of course, it also helps that whenever a store asks for my phone number I tell them to f off.
Have you had your house burglarized lately? Unless you are very wealthy they pretty much have given up. They'll take a report, tell you that it is very rare that items get recovered, and go back to watching for speeders.
Well if the original was poorly coded or overengineered it may speak to the adequacy of the development platform. It may be that RoR is just an easier platform to develop well written applications.
That sounds a little but like a double standard. To me the OS tax is when I cannot buy the hardware without also paying for the OS. If anything, it is a hell of a lot easier to buy a PC with Windows than it is to buy a Mac without OS X and a Palm with PalmOS.
Every company has gone through the same thing. This isn't something new that was sprung on everybody last week. Their year end was October 31, 2004. Something like this happens it doesn't matter how good your accounting department is - heads have to roll.
What's interesting is that their former auditors were Arthur Andersen which now do not exist. They now are with KPMG. It wouldn't surprise me if KPMG was being a little more conservative than SCO would like.
You could copy all of the information from the site but you wouldn't be able to copy the meta information created by google (or whomever) that is used to organize the information, you obviously wouldn't be able to use any logos or other trademarkes names, and you probably would get in trouble if you made the look and feel too similar. Add to that the fact that you would have to host it and then compete against a well known brand.
Barnes and Nobles actually sells dozens of public domain works in nice matching set hard covers. Anybody can get the works for free online but having it in such a nicely bound package makes it worth the $5-10 they charge.
Are there really that many people who oppose interstellar travel? Wouldn't we have to prove it is feasible first before people really started worrying about the cost? We haven't even figured out how to get to Mars and back in a reasonable fashion yet.
It has nothing to do with lazy. TV and video games happen to be a very effective means of educating. My nephew knows a lot more Spanish than I do because of Dora the Explorer. I am not suggesting that TV and games replace school but if used properly it can be a great enhancement to education.
But the point is that he is only the president. While we make that out to be some great role it is only powerful when he also has control of Congress (which unfortunately he does) and the Judicial Branch (which he may have before his term is over). Even with all that we still have separate states with their own governors, most of their own laws, and their own courts.
Also remember that the electoral college actually does exist to prevent NY and California from electing our president. Not that that would be a bad thing from my point of view but the idea is that Rhode Island is a state also and should have some say in the way the country is run.
That quote should not bother you because it is how the US was built. If anything it is more accurate today than it was 200 years ago. Right now we live in a country that is being driven by a 51% majority but because we live in a republic instead of a democracy I can live in a state that is part of that minority and still have some say in how the government is run (although I am not so sure).
The problem with a true democracy is that while people alone are individuals, people in groups are sheep. All you need is one rabble rouser to turn a crowd into a mob. You want a great example of sheep-like behavior? Walk around Manhattan and see how often people cross the street against the light because one or two people rushed across and almost get run over. I cross against the light all the time but I always watch the cars and not other people. You can't imagine how many times I have stuck my arm out to catch somebody about to step in front of a bus.
I agree, however, that wikipedia does a good job overall. I still wouldn't trust it 100%, though.
PS Forgive me if I am rambling today. First day of the first full workweek in a month.
I still don't know what's wrong with selling pornography. If I define steak as "food of not literary or artistic value other than to satisfy hunger" then would it be bad? Not everything has to have literary or artistic value. Most of what is one TV and the internet (including slashdot) has no literary or artistic value. It is also a matter of opinion what is artistic and what is not.
You still make no sense with trying to connect his current job with elitism. You keep putting the two together but can't seem to make coherent explanation. Why is it so hard to reconcile his job with his words? Why even try? If Larry Flint had some great profound thought would you discount it because he sells porn? Even if it is true?
He can't control the trolling and heckling but would you deal with it for free when you had a hard time dealing with it for money? I am not sure how you can miss where I am "going with that". It is like Mary Poppins said - A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.
Like you said - it is a free country. In your opinion the project is noble and obviously above criticism. In his more educated, and seemingly more intelligent, opinion he thinks there are flaws and chose to express them along with solutions. Both of you are welcome to express your opinions and your silly "if you don't have something nice to say then don't say anything at all" can go to hell.
Wikipedia is far from town-meeting democracy. As the poster below noted it is dominated by the person who has the most time to scream the loudest. It is mobocracy.
As for Democracy - I will let you know when one comes around. Until there is an example of a whole country run as a Democracy then it will be hard to judge. Of course, I guess the same could be said for true Communism.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
You tell me who said that. I will give you a hint. He was one of the founding fathers who made the US a federal republic governed by representative democracy.
I understand that Communism doesn't assume everyone has the same abilities. What I meant is that people don't like being told that. In communism I have to accept that I will have a crappy job because that is where my place is in the community. By nature human beings don't like that. We dream of being superstars. And there are plenty of stories of the accountant or lawyer leaving his job to open up a restaurant, bakery, surf shack, etc. and going on to greatness. In communism that is a lot harder since no one is supposed to be greater than anybody else, just different.
You are right, though. Wikipedia is a mobocracy. I will elaborate in response to the gentleman above.
The reason that Communism failed is the same reason that Wikipedia fails. We are NOT all created equal. Some people are more intelligent than others, some are stronger or faster, some have great patience and finesse for craft skills, etc.
But most people are just average. It sucks, I know, because I am one of those average people. I don't expect to win the Nobel prize (any of them), I won't all of a sudden become a quarterback in my mid-30's, and I can barely use a powersaw let alone making a piece of furniture.
The problem with wikipedia is that some people don't realize that they aren't the great subject matter experts they think they are. If someone comes along who knows the subject better than you and writes better than you then you just have to accept that what you wrote may be removed.
I've lost track of what my point was. Hopefully somebody else can continue my thread while I go back to my average job.
Is there something wrong with selling "smut"? And what does it have to do with elitism?
As for the stopped participating part, we all need to feed ourselves and our families. Why work for free for something that is filled with venom and abuse? His point was get paid and deal with the abuse or work for free if there is no abuse.
You also are a hypocrite. You obviously didn't have something nice to say.
How can you say that Apple, Dell, and Amazon haven't made a donation? You have absolutely not support and nothing but your hatred of America as evidence.
I strongly disagree with you on the local charity front. Charity should always start at home. Of course, they should give globally but when you take from a community I think it is important that you give back. By take I don't just mean by selling your products to them but by using the resources of the community such as police, fire, ambulance, road maintenance, etc. Many of these companies don't pay proportionately in taxes what they use. Sure there are some huge companies that should give to more communities than others but they number only in the dozens. I should also point out that the US is in a trade deficit which means that more of our money goes overseas than comes in. Perhaps you should attack Japan instead.
What people hate me? They haven't even met me. I gave what I could to the relief effort just like I volunteered my time after september 11 which affect my community directly. Our country gives FAR more per capita than any other country in the world. You are barking up the wrong tree if you thinks that people hate the US because it doesn't give enough to charity.
I mentioned Microsoft because the other poster mentioned Microsoft. Other companies would be the same. And I don't pay Amazon with cash. I pay with credit which they then get charged a percentage to process, lose a part to cost of goods sold, taxes, etc. and some of the rest is used to pay their employees and other overhead costs. Obviously they end up with money at the end of the day but the law requires that most of that has to go back into the business or to the shareholders. In no country can a company donate its entire profits to charity. Remember that a company is owned by its shareholders not the board. That isn't US specific either.
And if you donate to a charity and make a big stink about it then it isn't charity. It is advertising expense. I would also be wary of those companies that say they donate a percentage of profit. Make sure you find out what percentage and what they define profit as. Also see my comment about shareholders rights.
Many companies donate millions of dollars each year but they don't make big announcements about it. It isn't exactly in the spirit of charity if you turn it into a publicity stunt. I also think it is a good thing that they give mostly to local charities. It is important to help the community that directly and indirectly supports you business. Not to sound bleeding heart but there are people starving in the US.
To also clarify the other gentleman's point about paper cash. If Microsoft decided to liquidate even a small percentage of their investments it would trigger a significant market downturn. Instead of thinking of it as an investment think of it as trying to sell widgets. If I decide to sell all of my widgets at the same time I will flood the market and the price I will get for each individual one will be a lot less than if I sold them in small batches.
Sorry it took so long to respond but I haven't been on the site. According to Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 44-45 ('72) "The Fifth Amendment can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal".
Clinton took heat because he had his cock sucked by an intern and lied about it under oath. Not sure how that applies here. In his case "taking the fifth" would have been an admission of guilt.
Slashdot Mirror
Intangible assets such as subscriber base don't really factor into the value of a company since they are impossible to measure. Just ask Reader's Digest.
Actually it was a 55/45 merger and the company has been called only Time Warner for a couple of years now.
It's been a long time since I've had problems with Firefox not rendering a page properly. It's also been a long time since I had stability issues with Windows. I use Firefox on Windows because I think it is the best user experience for what I do and then security.
Combined with anonymous call blocking I get pretty much no solicitation calls. Of course, it also helps that whenever a store asks for my phone number I tell them to f off.
Yeah a trademark. You are brilliant.
Have you had your house burglarized lately? Unless you are very wealthy they pretty much have given up. They'll take a report, tell you that it is very rare that items get recovered, and go back to watching for speeders.
Well if the original was poorly coded or overengineered it may speak to the adequacy of the development platform. It may be that RoR is just an easier platform to develop well written applications.
That sounds a little but like a double standard. To me the OS tax is when I cannot buy the hardware without also paying for the OS. If anything, it is a hell of a lot easier to buy a PC with Windows than it is to buy a Mac without OS X and a Palm with PalmOS.
Of course they would be happy. For Apple the OS tax is built directly into the cost. Is it even possible to buy a first hand Mac without any OS on it?
Every company has gone through the same thing. This isn't something new that was sprung on everybody last week. Their year end was October 31, 2004. Something like this happens it doesn't matter how good your accounting department is - heads have to roll.
What's interesting is that their former auditors were Arthur Andersen which now do not exist. They now are with KPMG. It wouldn't surprise me if KPMG was being a little more conservative than SCO would like.
You could copy all of the information from the site but you wouldn't be able to copy the meta information created by google (or whomever) that is used to organize the information, you obviously wouldn't be able to use any logos or other trademarkes names, and you probably would get in trouble if you made the look and feel too similar. Add to that the fact that you would have to host it and then compete against a well known brand.
Barnes and Nobles actually sells dozens of public domain works in nice matching set hard covers. Anybody can get the works for free online but having it in such a nicely bound package makes it worth the $5-10 they charge.
I think that would be a great Pauly Shore movie - The Geek Sheik. Something in tribute to Jerry Lewis.
Are there really that many people who oppose interstellar travel? Wouldn't we have to prove it is feasible first before people really started worrying about the cost? We haven't even figured out how to get to Mars and back in a reasonable fashion yet.
It has nothing to do with lazy. TV and video games happen to be a very effective means of educating. My nephew knows a lot more Spanish than I do because of Dora the Explorer. I am not suggesting that TV and games replace school but if used properly it can be a great enhancement to education.
But the point is that he is only the president. While we make that out to be some great role it is only powerful when he also has control of Congress (which unfortunately he does) and the Judicial Branch (which he may have before his term is over). Even with all that we still have separate states with their own governors, most of their own laws, and their own courts.
Also remember that the electoral college actually does exist to prevent NY and California from electing our president. Not that that would be a bad thing from my point of view but the idea is that Rhode Island is a state also and should have some say in the way the country is run.
That quote should not bother you because it is how the US was built. If anything it is more accurate today than it was 200 years ago. Right now we live in a country that is being driven by a 51% majority but because we live in a republic instead of a democracy I can live in a state that is part of that minority and still have some say in how the government is run (although I am not so sure).
The problem with a true democracy is that while people alone are individuals, people in groups are sheep. All you need is one rabble rouser to turn a crowd into a mob. You want a great example of sheep-like behavior? Walk around Manhattan and see how often people cross the street against the light because one or two people rushed across and almost get run over. I cross against the light all the time but I always watch the cars and not other people. You can't imagine how many times I have stuck my arm out to catch somebody about to step in front of a bus.
I agree, however, that wikipedia does a good job overall. I still wouldn't trust it 100%, though.
PS Forgive me if I am rambling today. First day of the first full workweek in a month.
I still don't know what's wrong with selling pornography. If I define steak as "food of not literary or artistic value other than to satisfy hunger" then would it be bad? Not everything has to have literary or artistic value. Most of what is one TV and the internet (including slashdot) has no literary or artistic value. It is also a matter of opinion what is artistic and what is not.
You still make no sense with trying to connect his current job with elitism. You keep putting the two together but can't seem to make coherent explanation. Why is it so hard to reconcile his job with his words? Why even try? If Larry Flint had some great profound thought would you discount it because he sells porn? Even if it is true?
He can't control the trolling and heckling but would you deal with it for free when you had a hard time dealing with it for money? I am not sure how you can miss where I am "going with that". It is like Mary Poppins said - A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.
Like you said - it is a free country. In your opinion the project is noble and obviously above criticism. In his more educated, and seemingly more intelligent, opinion he thinks there are flaws and chose to express them along with solutions. Both of you are welcome to express your opinions and your silly "if you don't have something nice to say then don't say anything at all" can go to hell.
Wikipedia is far from town-meeting democracy. As the poster below noted it is dominated by the person who has the most time to scream the loudest. It is mobocracy.
As for Democracy - I will let you know when one comes around. Until there is an example of a whole country run as a Democracy then it will be hard to judge. Of course, I guess the same could be said for true Communism.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
You tell me who said that. I will give you a hint. He was one of the founding fathers who made the US a federal republic governed by representative democracy.
I understand that Communism doesn't assume everyone has the same abilities. What I meant is that people don't like being told that. In communism I have to accept that I will have a crappy job because that is where my place is in the community. By nature human beings don't like that. We dream of being superstars. And there are plenty of stories of the accountant or lawyer leaving his job to open up a restaurant, bakery, surf shack, etc. and going on to greatness. In communism that is a lot harder since no one is supposed to be greater than anybody else, just different.
You are right, though. Wikipedia is a mobocracy. I will elaborate in response to the gentleman above.
The reason that Communism failed is the same reason that Wikipedia fails. We are NOT all created equal. Some people are more intelligent than others, some are stronger or faster, some have great patience and finesse for craft skills, etc.
But most people are just average. It sucks, I know, because I am one of those average people. I don't expect to win the Nobel prize (any of them), I won't all of a sudden become a quarterback in my mid-30's, and I can barely use a powersaw let alone making a piece of furniture.
The problem with wikipedia is that some people don't realize that they aren't the great subject matter experts they think they are. If someone comes along who knows the subject better than you and writes better than you then you just have to accept that what you wrote may be removed.
I've lost track of what my point was. Hopefully somebody else can continue my thread while I go back to my average job.
Is there something wrong with selling "smut"? And what does it have to do with elitism?
As for the stopped participating part, we all need to feed ourselves and our families. Why work for free for something that is filled with venom and abuse? His point was get paid and deal with the abuse or work for free if there is no abuse.
You also are a hypocrite. You obviously didn't have something nice to say.
Wasn't the encyclopedia project just a cover story?
How can you say that Apple, Dell, and Amazon haven't made a donation? You have absolutely not support and nothing but your hatred of America as evidence.
I strongly disagree with you on the local charity front. Charity should always start at home. Of course, they should give globally but when you take from a community I think it is important that you give back. By take I don't just mean by selling your products to them but by using the resources of the community such as police, fire, ambulance, road maintenance, etc. Many of these companies don't pay proportionately in taxes what they use. Sure there are some huge companies that should give to more communities than others but they number only in the dozens. I should also point out that the US is in a trade deficit which means that more of our money goes overseas than comes in. Perhaps you should attack Japan instead.
What people hate me? They haven't even met me. I gave what I could to the relief effort just like I volunteered my time after september 11 which affect my community directly. Our country gives FAR more per capita than any other country in the world. You are barking up the wrong tree if you thinks that people hate the US because it doesn't give enough to charity.
I mentioned Microsoft because the other poster mentioned Microsoft. Other companies would be the same. And I don't pay Amazon with cash. I pay with credit which they then get charged a percentage to process, lose a part to cost of goods sold, taxes, etc. and some of the rest is used to pay their employees and other overhead costs. Obviously they end up with money at the end of the day but the law requires that most of that has to go back into the business or to the shareholders. In no country can a company donate its entire profits to charity. Remember that a company is owned by its shareholders not the board. That isn't US specific either.
And if you donate to a charity and make a big stink about it then it isn't charity. It is advertising expense. I would also be wary of those companies that say they donate a percentage of profit. Make sure you find out what percentage and what they define profit as. Also see my comment about shareholders rights.
Many companies donate millions of dollars each year but they don't make big announcements about it. It isn't exactly in the spirit of charity if you turn it into a publicity stunt. I also think it is a good thing that they give mostly to local charities. It is important to help the community that directly and indirectly supports you business. Not to sound bleeding heart but there are people starving in the US.
To also clarify the other gentleman's point about paper cash. If Microsoft decided to liquidate even a small percentage of their investments it would trigger a significant market downturn. Instead of thinking of it as an investment think of it as trying to sell widgets. If I decide to sell all of my widgets at the same time I will flood the market and the price I will get for each individual one will be a lot less than if I sold them in small batches.
Sorry it took so long to respond but I haven't been on the site. According to Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 44-45 ('72) "The Fifth Amendment can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal".
Clinton took heat because he had his cock sucked by an intern and lied about it under oath. Not sure how that applies here. In his case "taking the fifth" would have been an admission of guilt.