The drop in stock price after the announcement of the Nokia Microsoft venture was sharp for a single day. It's also one of the highest volume days in the last 5 years.
However, the drop is insignificant compared to the drop from late 2007 to now. Market Cap at Nokia is 1/4 what it was. Stock prices have dropped from mid 40's / share to ~ 10/share.
Besides, the 8.5B drop in market cap isn't nearly as important to the bottom line as the billions in cash coming in from Microsoft as part of this deal.
Netflix does not use any bandwidth on Comcast's network; Comcast's *users* use that bandwidth when they request a video stream from netflix.
Comcast is in the business, supposedly, of providing bandwidth to a home in exchange for a monthly fee. If a user, group of users, whole town, are using more bandwidth than Comcast thinks is appropriate for the amount of fee, then a renegotiation of that contract should ensue.
Let's not let pundits and blogs and shills turn this debate on it's head. Google, Netflix, Pornotube or any other site does not utilize one bit of bandwidth on a last-mile network that is not specifically requested by the users of that network. The issues of bandwidth usage or over usage is, and should always be, one between the users and the provider.
That being said, what Comcast is reported to be doing, apparently legally for now, is a marketing fiasco in the making. Comcast does not offer any kind of comparable service for a comparable price. They are creating an artificial limit on my use of their service and a strong incentive to move to a different provider that knows what business they are in with respect to my contract with them. Ie.. the bandwidth buisness.
I personally use Comcast's business services and so far have been quite happy to have avoided their shenanigans on the consumer side. However, if they begin limiting, filtering or otherwise placing themselves between me and those whom I choose to engange in commerce with, then I, as any intelligent business man or consumer would, take my money somewhere else.
This is a perfect opportunity for a smart company to come in and advertise and sell based on 'unfiltered, unfettered, unlimited' or some similar marketing plan.
Yeah, we used to call this level of code a functional prototype. Build the features that let you test you concepts and ideas. Get as many eyeballs on it as possible. Not all of the defects, holes, changes, bugs, etc.
Now take that information, go back to a blank slate, and start coding towards a v1.0 release.
What I've seen of the Diaspora code, and what I've seen others post about it tells me this is definitely in the prototype / conceptual release phase. It's called a Pre-Alpha for a reason.
Moore's "law" is a description of a trend in development of technologies. It is not a "law" that governs the physical world, nor is it a a legislative 'Law' that governs people's actions.
You know what will happen if Moore's Law is no longer an accurate predictor of technological growth? Nothing. That's what. A new rule of thumb will come about based on the new growth curves.
You can not delete legal texts. You are bound by the laws as they exist *when* you commit an act that falls within their restrictions.
The idea of refactoring is one that I've played with in the past. With a few of the more heinous or publicized legal changes that have come from Congress over the last few years, it's been an interesting exercise.
This sounds like something the EFF should undertake.
Federal requirements to protect health records, financial data, personal information, etc.. are great things. Federal requirements that say "unlawful disclosure of X information will result in Y penalties" is definitely a good thing. Federal requirements stating *HOW* every business within an industry or even across all industries perform a function are outdated at best, counter-productive at worst, before the ink's dry on the legislation.
Replying again for OSX. MacBook Pro, attached to 24inch LCD. MBP's built in screen @ 1440x900, attached LCD at 1650x1080. At times I attach to a 1920x1080 42inch monitor for meetings. I think I've used display mirroring once or twice in a couple of years. havnen't used the 'stretched' desktop ever.
Funny that. My gaming machine runs XP with two monitors, single video card. Two seperate, different resolution, (one 16:9, one 4:3), even at times a different color depth desktops. Works great for me.
In a pure free market system, the most valuable item on a company's portfolio is it's reputation. A company deliberately misleading the consumers of their product would quickly find themselves without consumers.
How do the consumers find out? I answer that by pointing you to the very top of this discussion. Either someone inside the company lets it out (wikileaks?), a competitor takes a good look at the product (normal business practice: study your competition) and lets the word out, or some other curious person looks at their food and says "um, something's fishy here".
Word gets out and that companies reputation goes into the toilet. No one would sell their product because no one would want to buy it. Their competitors would, rightly, expound greatly upon such a scandal.
Nowhere did I say the books were free in my post. Baen *sells* their complete catalog through their webscriptions site in the formats I listed above.
True, the Baen free library has the first one or two books in a longer series for free, but they also sell the rest of that series DRM free.
Take a look at the link called "books with CDs" on the webscriptions site. Those CDs are bundled with the dead tree versions of the books, but are also available as ISO images if you purchase the electronic version instead.
On those CDs are, in most cases, the complete body of work published by Baen for that author. Again, not a hint of DRM anywhere.
"There is no source that I know of for new, legal novels without DRM."
Wrong. Baen publishing has been selling their entire catalog for almost 10 years with NO DRM. RTF, HTML, Mobi, epub, sony, and rocket formats. Direct support from their store for e-mailing to your kindle and relatively simple support for the iphone/ipod touch.
They're also selling several other publisher's books through their store now too. Including a direct competitor, Tor.
".. imposing new cooperation requirements upon Internet service providers, including perfunctory disclosure of customer information, as well as measures restricting the use of online privacy tools."
So this starts out as a copyright issue but once it's against the law to use online privacy tools, even within certain uses, it becomes more easily actionable to use them at all.
The RIAA/MPAA/xyAA are smoke screens for what's really going on with our rights and our privacy.
You're association of a spoken interview that included things offensive to a specific political and religious group with the *act* of filming the rape or molestation of a child is facetious and destroys most if not all of your credibility.
That said, I will answer your statement that freedom of expression ends with offensiveness. The trite phrase "no right to not be offended" is just that, trite. The issue goes much further.
No political, religious or social group has the right, or legal authority, to tell me, and individual, what I can think, write, or even scream from the rooftops; laws about public nuisance not-withstanding since their content neutral as written.
If someone says something in a public forum that you find offensive, inaccurate or inflamatory, then you have the right to take up a public forum of your own and espouse your opinions on that topic. You do not, nor should you in any free society, be able to use force of arms to silence that opposition.
Contrary to the discussion here, though, I support NetSol's rights to shutter that website. Their terms of service are a contract signed by the film-maker when he put his website on their servers. They have every legal amd moral right to act as they did. They are a private organization who said up front "do this and we'll pull the plug".
What are his options? Simple. Find an ISP or web host who has a bit more testicular fortitude and move his site there. It's called free enterprise and it works quite well.
Should NetSol have pulled the plug? In my opinion, as a business owner myself who deals in sometimes offensive and edgy content, I say "hell no". You can not BUY the kind of marketing that this type of contoversy can build. You also can not, and wouldn't want to, buy the kind of negative marketing their actions took.
I'd love to see the numbers on how many accounts switch to other providers and registrars over the next 90 days.
It's for the ultra-secret black ops team stationed on the ISS to oversee the compound that Osama's been hiding out in somewhere in the deep woods of Nebraska. They need snipers for the Reagan administration's Briliant Pebbles system to drop rocks like the one that was live fire tested in Peru last week by the CDC.
(/humor off)
(sorry, been reading LiveJournal's political blogs again)
No, you do not pay for a listing service from Zap2it when you watch commercials on the shows you record with your MythTV. Those commercials pay for the show you are watching. Also, unless you're a Nielsen family or using some system that reports home what you're watching, then you're not paying anything to anyone. You're just wasting your time watching commercials.
The registrars will have billing records for the time period in which the infraction occured. That's all the courts care about, and ultimatly, all that's actionable.
Even if someone moved a domain to a different registrar, you would still go to the original registrar for the information.
As for the international issues, you would have to, I assume, work with the State Dept to contact the authorities in whatever country the domain was registered in for that information.
You'd have to do so anyway once you had the information to prove ownership of the domain and prevent a defense of "I was phished and they used my info for their nefarious plots".
It's not a perfect world, but I much prefer a world where the bar on piercing the veil of privacy is high enough that it takes a very serious issue and willingness to put alot of work and money into the system to jump it.
It should never be a trivial task. My privacy is anything but trivial.
There is a perfectly good system in place (at least in the US) for people who have a legal right to access the private information of a domain registrant. It's called due process.
If you think someone is infringing on your trademark, committing fraud, or some other illegal or actionable offense, then you go before a judge and request the court issue a demand for that information.
Yes, it's expensive. Yes, it's a pain in the posterior. Yes, that is as it should be. The more difficult you make it to pierce the rightful barrier of privacy of an individual, the stronger that barrier is and the less capricious that piercing can be.
The courts are the place to go to acquire this information. The Markets make it profitable for legitimate companies to not hide that information.
It's not about the number of parallel projects. Look at how many types of peripheral interface busses there were in the early to mid 80s? The more different minds and wallets work on a project, with their own ideas, abilities and directions, the higher the chances something really awesome will come out of it. If you have 100 projects trying to solve the same problem, one or two of those projects will become the default solution for most people and the other 98 will fall by the wayside. However, the knowlege and technology developed in those 98 will still be there and will be used, somewhere, where the "accepted" solution doesn't work.
Firewire and USB are prefect examples of this.
So to answer your question more succinctly? "How many projects do we need?" All of them.
There is a simple way to make Community Standards based laws valid and fair again. Apply them only to physical media distributed directly into the community in question at the volition of the producer or supplier of the questionable content.
The Producer or supplier of the content would then be prosecutable because they took a direct action to supply material to a person in a community that deemed that material to be obscene. However, a person who requested that material be shipped into that community would be held accountable as a supplier or distributor for initiating the transaction instead of the originators of the material.
If a person in a community requests, electronically, material be downloaded that is considered obscene in that community, then fault rests squarely with that person.
The equivalent physical world to each would be the following two scenarios.
1) Bob calls "Pr0n Pr0duc3rs of California" and orders a DVD that is considered to be obscene in his community and requests it to be shipped to him. Bob would be held solely responsible for violating that community's standards.
2) PPoC decides to set up a remote distributor and store front in a community and begins to sell material from that storefront that the community deems obscene, then PPoC would be held liable for violating the laws of the community the store front resides in.
3) Bob logs onto the internet and goes to PPoC's website and downloads a video. That video is deemed obscene by his community's standards. Bob would be held solely responsible for violating that community's standards.
4) Bob gets in his car and drives to California and buys a DVD from PPoC, where it has been deemed protected material under the 1st Amendment and drives back to his home in a community where that DVD is considered Obscene. Bob, again, would be held solely responsible for violating his community's standards.
In #1 above, PPoC could be held an accessory only if it could be proven that they knew in advance that the requested material would be deemed obscene in the community they have been asked to ship it to.
In #2 above, PPoC would be held fully responsible for the material they distribute through the storefront and warehouse in that community because they exist as a corporate entity within that community.
Notice that #3 & #4 are almost identical. PPoC makes no direct action that results in their content being distributed into a specific community. A purchaser of that content does.
Basically the community standards test should only apply, and can only reasonably apply to the person or persons whose act directly results in the distribution of material in a community deemed obscene by that community.
They still left one out. XP Media Center Edition. Unless they're considering that an Embedded edition.
I'm running MythTV so it's not an issue, but it would suck to not be able to watch Foamy the Squirrel on my plasma tv.
--| One day, I think business apps will be programmed using tools something like Visio - drag and drop your 'web service' 'component' match up the inputs and outputs, and connect a GUI at one end (that provides inputs) and a DB 'component' at the other (to provide outputs). Something like this would be suitable for programming 99% of business applications and would be useable by 'business people', not dedicated programmers. |--
This type of development has already existed in many forms. AmigaVision, Macromedia Director, Even the venerable old Hypercard.
My question to people who cry about this falling sky is where do the codeless development tools come from? Comeone has to write the compilers that are used to build the object sets that the GUI's expose to the business user.
The comment from someone up-list that Programmers will never go away, but code-monkeys should rehearse their next job by temping at McDonalds is true.
As with the publishing industry and any technology industry, those who can and do understand the fundementals, the science, and the underlying theories will always be useful. However, they must be flexible in their tool sets and the application of their abilities to remain employable.
Back in the good old days of pre-IPO mindspring (employ #63), you could have just worn a bikini or biker shorts to work.
In my interview I asked about dress code. Answer: "If you can walk here from the train station and not get arrested, you can wear it to work. We just ask that you wear shoes if meeting a customer."
Mindspring was the *best* place to work and within a year of the IPO was probably the worst place I've ever worked.
Slashdot Mirror
The drop in stock price after the announcement of the Nokia Microsoft venture was sharp for a single day. It's also one of the highest volume days in the last 5 years.
However, the drop is insignificant compared to the drop from late 2007 to now. Market Cap at Nokia is 1/4 what it was. Stock prices have dropped from mid 40's / share to ~ 10/share.
Besides, the 8.5B drop in market cap isn't nearly as important to the bottom line as the billions in cash coming in from Microsoft as part of this deal.
Netflix does not use any bandwidth on Comcast's network; Comcast's *users* use that bandwidth when they request a video stream from netflix.
Comcast is in the business, supposedly, of providing bandwidth to a home in exchange for a monthly fee. If a user, group of users, whole town, are using more bandwidth than Comcast thinks is appropriate for the amount of fee, then a renegotiation of that contract should ensue.
Let's not let pundits and blogs and shills turn this debate on it's head. Google, Netflix, Pornotube or any other site does not utilize one bit of bandwidth on a last-mile network that is not specifically requested by the users of that network. The issues of bandwidth usage or over usage is, and should always be, one between the users and the provider.
That being said, what Comcast is reported to be doing, apparently legally for now, is a marketing fiasco in the making. Comcast does not offer any kind of comparable service for a comparable price. They are creating an artificial limit on my use of their service and a strong incentive to move to a different provider that knows what business they are in with respect to my contract with them. Ie.. the bandwidth buisness.
I personally use Comcast's business services and so far have been quite happy to have avoided their shenanigans on the consumer side. However, if they begin limiting, filtering or otherwise placing themselves between me and those whom I choose to engange in commerce with, then I, as any intelligent business man or consumer would, take my money somewhere else.
This is a perfect opportunity for a smart company to come in and advertise and sell based on 'unfiltered, unfettered, unlimited' or some similar marketing plan.
"Right, because a low bitrate lossy compressed version of a song is as good as the real thing on CD..."
there, FIFY.
It's the same mentality and this article is more about discussing the application of that insanity to the world of physical objects and 3D printers.
Who knew that when I checked *my* daily's, including /., that I'd see one of the very rare articles that stretches my brain a bit.
Math.. it's what's for breakfast.
Yeah, we used to call this level of code a functional prototype. Build the features that let you test you concepts and ideas. Get as many eyeballs on it as possible. Not all of the defects, holes, changes, bugs, etc.
Now take that information, go back to a blank slate, and start coding towards a v1.0 release.
What I've seen of the Diaspora code, and what I've seen others post about it tells me this is definitely in the prototype / conceptual release phase. It's called a Pre-Alpha for a reason.
THIS! ^^^
Moore's "law" is a description of a trend in development of technologies. It is not a "law" that governs the physical world, nor is it a a legislative 'Law' that governs people's actions.
You know what will happen if Moore's Law is no longer an accurate predictor of technological growth? Nothing. That's what. A new rule of thumb will come about based on the new growth curves.
You can not delete legal texts. You are bound by the laws as they exist *when* you commit an act that falls within their restrictions.
The idea of refactoring is one that I've played with in the past. With a few of the more heinous or publicized legal changes that have come from Congress over the last few years, it's been an interesting exercise.
This sounds like something the EFF should undertake.
Federal requirements to protect health records, financial data, personal information, etc.. are great things. Federal requirements that say "unlawful disclosure of X information will result in Y penalties" is definitely a good thing. Federal requirements stating *HOW* every business within an industry or even across all industries perform a function are outdated at best, counter-productive at worst, before the ink's dry on the legislation.
Replying again for OSX. MacBook Pro, attached to 24inch LCD. MBP's built in screen @ 1440x900, attached LCD at 1650x1080. At times I attach to a 1920x1080 42inch monitor for meetings. I think I've used display mirroring once or twice in a couple of years. havnen't used the 'stretched' desktop ever.
Funny that. My gaming machine runs XP with two monitors, single video card. Two seperate, different resolution, (one 16:9, one 4:3), even at times a different color depth desktops. Works great for me.
In a pure free market system, the most valuable item on a company's portfolio is it's reputation. A company deliberately misleading the consumers of their product would quickly find themselves without consumers.
How do the consumers find out? I answer that by pointing you to the very top of this discussion. Either someone inside the company lets it out (wikileaks?), a competitor takes a good look at the product (normal business practice: study your competition) and lets the word out, or some other curious person looks at their food and says "um, something's fishy here".
Word gets out and that companies reputation goes into the toilet. No one would sell their product because no one would want to buy it. Their competitors would, rightly, expound greatly upon such a scandal.
It's a self correcting problem.
The webscriptions site also has what appears to be Harlan Ellison's complete back catalog.
I'd love to see every book published this way, and my grandkids may actually see that.
There are people doing it in an open and profitable way.
Nowhere did I say the books were free in my post. Baen *sells* their complete catalog through their webscriptions site in the formats I listed above.
True, the Baen free library has the first one or two books in a longer series for free, but they also sell the rest of that series DRM free.
Take a look at the link called "books with CDs" on the webscriptions site. Those CDs are bundled with the dead tree versions of the books, but are also available as ISO images if you purchase the electronic version instead.
On those CDs are, in most cases, the complete body of work published by Baen for that author. Again, not a hint of DRM anywhere.
"There is no source that I know of for new, legal novels without DRM."
Wrong. Baen publishing has been selling their entire catalog for almost 10 years with NO DRM. RTF, HTML, Mobi, epub, sony, and rocket formats. Direct support from their store for e-mailing to your kindle and relatively simple support for the iphone/ipod touch.
They're also selling several other publisher's books through their store now too. Including a direct competitor, Tor.
Scott
".. imposing new cooperation requirements upon Internet service providers, including perfunctory disclosure of customer information, as well as measures restricting the use of online privacy tools."
So this starts out as a copyright issue but once it's against the law to use online privacy tools, even within certain uses, it becomes more easily actionable to use them at all.
The RIAA/MPAA/xyAA are smoke screens for what's really going on with our rights and our privacy.
You're association of a spoken interview that included things offensive to a specific political and religious group with the *act* of filming the rape or molestation of a child is facetious and destroys most if not all of your credibility.
That said, I will answer your statement that freedom of expression ends with offensiveness. The trite phrase "no right to not be offended" is just that, trite. The issue goes much further.
No political, religious or social group has the right, or legal authority, to tell me, and individual, what I can think, write, or even scream from the rooftops; laws about public nuisance not-withstanding since their content neutral as written.
If someone says something in a public forum that you find offensive, inaccurate or inflamatory, then you have the right to take up a public forum of your own and espouse your opinions on that topic. You do not, nor should you in any free society, be able to use force of arms to silence that opposition.
Contrary to the discussion here, though, I support NetSol's rights to shutter that website. Their terms of service are a contract signed by the film-maker when he put his website on their servers. They have every legal amd moral right to act as they did. They are a private organization who said up front "do this and we'll pull the plug".
What are his options? Simple. Find an ISP or web host who has a bit more testicular fortitude and move his site there. It's called free enterprise and it works quite well.
Should NetSol have pulled the plug? In my opinion, as a business owner myself who deals in sometimes offensive and edgy content, I say "hell no". You can not BUY the kind of marketing that this type of contoversy can build. You also can not, and wouldn't want to, buy the kind of negative marketing their actions took.
I'd love to see the numbers on how many accounts switch to other providers and registrars over the next 90 days.
(humor on)
It's for the ultra-secret black ops team stationed on the ISS to oversee the compound that Osama's been hiding out in somewhere in the deep woods of Nebraska. They need snipers for the Reagan administration's Briliant Pebbles system to drop rocks like the one that was live fire tested in Peru last week by the CDC.
(/humor off)
(sorry, been reading LiveJournal's political blogs again)
No, you do not pay for a listing service from Zap2it when you watch commercials on the shows you record with your MythTV. Those commercials pay for the show you are watching. Also, unless you're a Nielsen family or using some system that reports home what you're watching, then you're not paying anything to anyone. You're just wasting your time watching commercials.
Enjoy.
Scott
The registrars will have billing records for the time period in which the infraction occured. That's all the courts care about, and ultimatly, all that's actionable.
Even if someone moved a domain to a different registrar, you would still go to the original registrar for the information.
As for the international issues, you would have to, I assume, work with the State Dept to contact the authorities in whatever country the domain was registered in for that information.
You'd have to do so anyway once you had the information to prove ownership of the domain and prevent a defense of "I was phished and they used my info for their nefarious plots".
It's not a perfect world, but I much prefer a world where the bar on piercing the veil of privacy is high enough that it takes a very serious issue and willingness to put alot of work and money into the system to jump it.
It should never be a trivial task. My privacy is anything but trivial.
There is a perfectly good system in place (at least in the US) for people who have a legal right to access the private information of a domain registrant. It's called due process.
If you think someone is infringing on your trademark, committing fraud, or some other illegal or actionable offense, then you go before a judge and request the court issue a demand for that information.
Yes, it's expensive. Yes, it's a pain in the posterior. Yes, that is as it should be. The more difficult you make it to pierce the rightful barrier of privacy of an individual, the stronger that barrier is and the less capricious that piercing can be.
The courts are the place to go to acquire this information. The Markets make it profitable for legitimate companies to not hide that information.
Seems that's a pretty good system to me.
It's not about the number of parallel projects. Look at how many types of peripheral interface busses there were in the early to mid 80s? The more different minds and wallets work on a project, with their own ideas, abilities and directions, the higher the chances something really awesome will come out of it. If you have 100 projects trying to solve the same problem, one or two of those projects will become the default solution for most people and the other 98 will fall by the wayside. However, the knowlege and technology developed in those 98 will still be there and will be used, somewhere, where the "accepted" solution doesn't work.
Firewire and USB are prefect examples of this.
So to answer your question more succinctly? "How many projects do we need?" All of them.
There is a simple way to make Community Standards based laws valid and fair again. Apply them only to physical media distributed directly into the community in question at the volition of the producer or supplier of the questionable content.
The Producer or supplier of the content would then be prosecutable because they took a direct action to supply material to a person in a community that deemed that material to be obscene. However, a person who requested that material be shipped into that community would be held accountable as a supplier or distributor for initiating the transaction instead of the originators of the material.
If a person in a community requests, electronically, material be downloaded that is considered obscene in that community, then fault rests squarely with that person.
The equivalent physical world to each would be the following two scenarios.
1) Bob calls "Pr0n Pr0duc3rs of California" and orders a DVD that is considered to be obscene in his community and requests it to be shipped to him. Bob would be held solely responsible for violating that community's standards.
2) PPoC decides to set up a remote distributor and store front in a community and begins to sell material from that storefront that the community deems obscene, then PPoC would be held liable for violating the laws of the community the store front resides in.
3) Bob logs onto the internet and goes to PPoC's website and downloads a video. That video is deemed obscene by his community's standards. Bob would be held solely responsible for violating that community's standards.
4) Bob gets in his car and drives to California and buys a DVD from PPoC, where it has been deemed protected material under the 1st Amendment and drives back to his home in a community where that DVD is considered Obscene. Bob, again, would be held solely responsible for violating his community's standards.
In #1 above, PPoC could be held an accessory only if it could be proven that they knew in advance that the requested material would be deemed obscene in the community they have been asked to ship it to.
In #2 above, PPoC would be held fully responsible for the material they distribute through the storefront and warehouse in that community because they exist as a corporate entity within that community.
Notice that #3 & #4 are almost identical. PPoC makes no direct action that results in their content being distributed into a specific community. A purchaser of that content does.
Basically the community standards test should only apply, and can only reasonably apply to the person or persons whose act directly results in the distribution of material in a community deemed obscene by that community.
They still left one out. XP Media Center Edition. Unless they're considering that an Embedded edition. I'm running MythTV so it's not an issue, but it would suck to not be able to watch Foamy the Squirrel on my plasma tv.
--| One day, I think business apps will be programmed using tools something like Visio - drag and drop your 'web service' 'component' match up the inputs and outputs, and connect a GUI at one end (that provides inputs) and a DB 'component' at the other (to provide outputs). Something like this would be suitable for programming 99% of business applications and would be useable by 'business people', not dedicated programmers. |--
This type of development has already existed in many forms. AmigaVision, Macromedia Director, Even the venerable old Hypercard.
My question to people who cry about this falling sky is where do the codeless development tools come from? Comeone has to write the compilers that are used to build the object sets that the GUI's expose to the business user.
The comment from someone up-list that Programmers will never go away, but code-monkeys should rehearse their next job by temping at McDonalds is true.
As with the publishing industry and any technology industry, those who can and do understand the fundementals, the science, and the underlying theories will always be useful. However, they must be flexible in their tool sets and the application of their abilities to remain employable.
Good old days..
Back in the good old days of pre-IPO mindspring (employ #63), you could have just worn a bikini or biker shorts to work.
In my interview I asked about dress code. Answer: "If you can walk here from the train station and not get arrested, you can wear it to work. We just ask that you wear shoes if meeting a customer."
Mindspring was the *best* place to work and within a year of the IPO was probably the worst place I've ever worked.