You're not properly translating the business speak.
Microsoft held a gun to our head and raped us, but they were gentle and considerate," said Hugh Cooney, the president of Rio, a unit of D&M Holdings of Japan. Rio had been using software from RealNetworks. "They had us take a valium with a glass of wine, and then used lots of astroglide. They were very patient waiting for our sphincter to loosen up first, so the tearing was minimal when they finally fucked the shit out of us," he said.
Well, the reason why no one got fired for buying IBM was that it was safe, conventional choice. IBM was trying to reinforce the idea that it was a no brainer. For MP3 players, it might be more likely to say, "No one ever got laughed at for listening to an iPod", (given that it's the socially desirable player, i.e., the status symbol). Now, that's pressing the Fear button!
In recent years, MS's reputation has taken a beating and is somewhat tarnished, even in the eyes of the general public. Apple's reputation among the general public, on the other hand, has increased.
All a competitor must do is show some real monetary damage caused them by MS's use of its monopoly market power.
Almost perfectly correct. I think you mean "abuse" instead of "use". Specifically, MS must be proven to have unfairly used their advantage to stifle competition. Otherwise, MS might also have settled with Novell over Wordperfect at the same time. I'm guessing it's not a slam dunk and will likely go to trial. (This isn't to say that Novell doesn't have a case and won't ultimately prevail.)
Reading between the lines, neither Mr You Made My Wife Leave Me nor the other "homeless man" defendent were worth squat. I fail to see the point in fining someone who has no money.
You don't need to read between the lines, you need to read for comprehension. The plaintiff was awarded damages that were approximately equivalent to the defendant's net worth. Secondly, this wasn't a fine, it was damages.
Mr. Holley did not appear in court to defend himself. Judge Low agreed that the e-mail was malicious, defamatory and untrue. General damages were pegged at $75,000 plus another $50,000 in aggravated damages.
The judge did this, knowing it amounted to hitting Mr. Holley for all he was worth, or very close to it. In her decision, she said the damages amounted to "equivalent to all or a significant portion of the defendant's assets."[emphasis mine]
Lastly, your characterization of all homeless people as erratic dimwits is, to put it bluntly, stupid.
There needs to be _some_ limit to the "free" market. Should the "free" market be allowed to take advantage of someone with lower intellegence? Why? It is their fault they don't have the brains of you or I.
So, you're basically saying, "No advertising in the Red States." While this is an excellent idea, I don't know if it's practical across the board. Maybe, just as we prohibit advertising tobacco products to minors, we can create specific prohibitions for the less intelligent, such as prohibiting political advertising in the Red States. Such a prohibition would prevent the less intelligent from becoming a threat to themselves or others.
Speaking as a fellow Californian, you're full of shit. California was never "emptied" of Mexicans. Hispanic people have lived continuously in California since the days when the missions were founded.
What's funny is that most of the anti-immigration people are probably descendants of the Oakies, the refugees from the dust bowl. I guess being poor white trash isn't so bad when you have someone you can treat like a nigger.
First of all, I don't think Silly is patentable outright. I think you might be able to patent a silly implementation or silly method, but you can't just patent Silly, as it is a concept.
Second, (and seriously now), you are confusing the legal system with the fucked up US patent system, and you seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water due to your hatred of patents. If you think that modern society could get along without the rule of law and a legal system, you are probably terribly naive.
Modern business is one of those human endeavors that absolutely relies on legal systems for dispute resolution. Now, we can question whether going to court is always the best first action to take, but I don't think many would question that the courts provide the best last word when other methods of dispute resolution have failed.
Countries without rule of law and court systems are far too risky for most investors and conventional business people.
Oh, most definitely! Hell, losing 20 cents is always better than losing a dollar. I guess I was being overly pedantic about the definition of success and failure in financial terms.
On December 20, Apple announced its intention to purchase NeXT Software in a friendly acquisition. When the deal went through on February 4, 1997, the total purchase price, including the fair value of the net liabilities assumed, was $427 million, which comprised $319 million in cash, 1.5 million shares of Apple stock (valued at $25 million), options on 1.9 million shares (valued at $16 million), cash payments of $56 million to the NeXT debtholders, cash payments of $9 million for closing and related costs, and $2 million of net liabilities assumed. As the largest shareholder of NeXT (he owned 45 percent), Jobs personally pocketed $100 million in cash and all 1.5 million shares of Apple stock, which he agreed not to sell for at least six months. All NeXT products, services, and technology research became part of Apple. Amelio now admits that Apple overpaid for NeXT, but it had little choice given the dire straits the company was in at the time.
I don't get the connection between stock price and revenue that you're making. Revenue never depends on stock price. It's the other way around; stock prices may fluctuate based on revenue growth, which hopefully indicates profit. I'm wondering if you even know what revenue is.
However, an increased stock price could be very helpful if AMD needs to borrow money, say to build a new fab somewhere. So, a high valuation is definitely directly financially helpful.
Well, from a financial perspective, it would depend on when you invested in NeXT, and whether you gained or lost money on that investment. You might also compare the performance vs. whatever market index, as even too low a rate of return might still be considered failure.
In other words, if the total investment was $401M, then selling the company for $400M is a financial failure. If the investment was $300M (a 33% rate of return), but the S&P (for example) earned 50% for the same period, some might consider it a failure.
Do you mean "not technically capable" as in it's not standard compliant or that it doesn't have TOG's blessing because they haven't paid the fee or even applied to TOG for this?
If it's because of lack of compliance to POSIX or some other standard, do you know in what areas it is not compliant?
While it might be unfair to any decent REALbasic shareware developers*, I basically run whenever I see the REALbasic logo.
Have you ever been to PerversionTracker? Amusing site that slags on useless and poorly designed Mac shareware, especially those "applications" written in REALbasic, like this one. Proof that MS doesn't have a monopoly on bad shareware. =)
*existence of said developers is highly theoretical
I got it good at Midstate Office Supply. I gots my dope Lotus software, my stoopid-fresh dry-erase markers, my fly three-ring binders wit' tha pockets inside, and my own muthafuckin' men's-room key. Plus, all them fly Marketing Department hos wanna be freakin' my jock all tha time.
You are correct, sir. Novell has brought out these minutes from a meeting of the board in answer to SCO's attempting to use Chatham's declaration as proof of malice.
The minutes do NOT conclusively prove that Novell owns Unix, only that they believed they did, and were acting WITHOUT malice, but in good faith.
Novell does not need to prove that they own Unix at this point. The burden is upon SCO, and so far, SCO is failing miserably.
Did you buy the $300 modem the week it first shipped, or did you buy it a month before newer and faster modems appeared? It really makes a big difference when you purchase during a particular products life cycle.
A case in point is my brother-in-law, a total gadget freak. (Hi Karl!) I think he once told me he "invests" around $500 in gadgets every year, but he always has the latest and greatest of everything. His method is to buy what he wants the moment it's shipping, and then immediately selling the gadget it is replacing on ebay. Part of why this works is that the "top-of-the-range" stuff tends to hold it's value longer.
I know someone else that does this with Macs. He's always got the latest, most powerful system, and he is able to afford this because he can always find a buyer willing to pay a good price for last years top of the line system. I'm not sure what his yearly outlay is, but it's not $5000 a year.
Slashdot Mirror
You might find this article about the reconstruction efforts in Iraq quite interesting.
What happens to any of your data when your hard drive fails? Do you lose it all?
A better question might be, "Do you back up your important data?"
You're not properly translating the business speak.
Microsoft held a gun to our head and raped us, but they were gentle and considerate," said Hugh Cooney, the president of Rio, a unit of D&M Holdings of Japan. Rio had been using software from RealNetworks. "They had us take a valium with a glass of wine, and then used lots of astroglide. They were very patient waiting for our sphincter to loosen up first, so the tearing was minimal when they finally fucked the shit out of us," he said.
I'm sure they'll get a better celebrity by the second service pack. V 3.0 of the software at the latest.
Well, the reason why no one got fired for buying IBM was that it was safe, conventional choice. IBM was trying to reinforce the idea that it was a no brainer. For MP3 players, it might be more likely to say, "No one ever got laughed at for listening to an iPod", (given that it's the socially desirable player, i.e., the status symbol). Now, that's pressing the Fear button!
In recent years, MS's reputation has taken a beating and is somewhat tarnished, even in the eyes of the general public. Apple's reputation among the general public, on the other hand, has increased.
All a competitor must do is show some real monetary damage caused them by MS's use of its monopoly market power.
Almost perfectly correct. I think you mean "abuse" instead of "use". Specifically, MS must be proven to have unfairly used their advantage to stifle competition. Otherwise, MS might also have settled with Novell over Wordperfect at the same time. I'm guessing it's not a slam dunk and will likely go to trial. (This isn't to say that Novell doesn't have a case and won't ultimately prevail.)
You don't need to read between the lines, you need to read for comprehension. The plaintiff was awarded damages that were approximately equivalent to the defendant's net worth. Secondly, this wasn't a fine, it was damages.
Lastly, your characterization of all homeless people as erratic dimwits is, to put it bluntly, stupid.
Just don't make the mistake of suing yourself. That can get very expensive, so I hear.
There needs to be _some_ limit to the "free" market. Should the "free" market be allowed to take advantage of someone with lower intellegence? Why? It is their fault they don't have the brains of you or I.
So, you're basically saying, "No advertising in the Red States." While this is an excellent idea, I don't know if it's practical across the board. Maybe, just as we prohibit advertising tobacco products to minors, we can create specific prohibitions for the less intelligent, such as prohibiting political advertising in the Red States. Such a prohibition would prevent the less intelligent from becoming a threat to themselves or others.
Speaking as a fellow Californian, you're full of shit. California was never "emptied" of Mexicans. Hispanic people have lived continuously in California since the days when the missions were founded.
What's funny is that most of the anti-immigration people are probably descendants of the Oakies, the refugees from the dust bowl. I guess being poor white trash isn't so bad when you have someone you can treat like a nigger.
First of all, I don't think Silly is patentable outright. I think you might be able to patent a silly implementation or silly method, but you can't just patent Silly, as it is a concept.
Second, (and seriously now), you are confusing the legal system with the fucked up US patent system, and you seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water due to your hatred of patents. If you think that modern society could get along without the rule of law and a legal system, you are probably terribly naive.
Modern business is one of those human endeavors that absolutely relies on legal systems for dispute resolution. Now, we can question whether going to court is always the best first action to take, but I don't think many would question that the courts provide the best last word when other methods of dispute resolution have failed.
Countries without rule of law and court systems are far too risky for most investors and conventional business people.
So, you're saying that one should avoid outsourcing to Washington State? =)
The programmers are fatter? Uh, I mean, bigger boned. =)
My first thought was to wonder if they built shark tanks aboard these 747s.
I came across this excerpt from Apple Confidential that someone (above or below) linked to here. I found the following paragraph very interesting.
I don't get the connection between stock price and revenue that you're making. Revenue never depends on stock price. It's the other way around; stock prices may fluctuate based on revenue growth, which hopefully indicates profit. I'm wondering if you even know what revenue is.
However, an increased stock price could be very helpful if AMD needs to borrow money, say to build a new fab somewhere. So, a high valuation is definitely directly financially helpful.
Well, from a financial perspective, it would depend on when you invested in NeXT, and whether you gained or lost money on that investment. You might also compare the performance vs. whatever market index, as even too low a rate of return might still be considered failure.
In other words, if the total investment was $401M, then selling the company for $400M is a financial failure. If the investment was $300M (a 33% rate of return), but the S&P (for example) earned 50% for the same period, some might consider it a failure.
But I'm sure you knew that already. =)
I generally don't read the comments at that site, but you're right, that last comment was filled with perversions. =)
Do you mean "not technically capable" as in it's not standard compliant or that it doesn't have TOG's blessing because they haven't paid the fee or even applied to TOG for this?
If it's because of lack of compliance to POSIX or some other standard, do you know in what areas it is not compliant?
While it might be unfair to any decent REALbasic shareware developers*, I basically run whenever I see the REALbasic logo.
Have you ever been to PerversionTracker? Amusing site that slags on useless and poorly designed Mac shareware, especially those "applications" written in REALbasic, like this one. Proof that MS doesn't have a monopoly on bad shareware. =)
*existence of said developers is highly theoretical
No, I think this is. Note how it effectively digs out that juicy "meta data". You might think that a search based on mucus is funny, but it'snot.
You are correct, sir. Novell has brought out these minutes from a meeting of the board in answer to SCO's attempting to use Chatham's declaration as proof of malice.
The minutes do NOT conclusively prove that Novell owns Unix, only that they believed they did, and were acting WITHOUT malice, but in good faith.
Novell does not need to prove that they own Unix at this point. The burden is upon SCO, and so far, SCO is failing miserably.
This is one of the downsides to getting an All-in-One unit.
Did you buy the $300 modem the week it first shipped, or did you buy it a month before newer and faster modems appeared? It really makes a big difference when you purchase during a particular products life cycle.
A case in point is my brother-in-law, a total gadget freak. (Hi Karl!) I think he once told me he "invests" around $500 in gadgets every year, but he always has the latest and greatest of everything. His method is to buy what he wants the moment it's shipping, and then immediately selling the gadget it is replacing on ebay. Part of why this works is that the "top-of-the-range" stuff tends to hold it's value longer.
I know someone else that does this with Macs. He's always got the latest, most powerful system, and he is able to afford this because he can always find a buyer willing to pay a good price for last years top of the line system. I'm not sure what his yearly outlay is, but it's not $5000 a year.