Yes, but you are assuming Microsoft's end goal is market share, but that should only be a means to an end. Eventually, market share must lead to profit. In the operating system business, there are obvious reasons why market share is profitable. Market share is far less important in the tax software business. Market share is important for online auction sites, because of network effects, but the auction revenue would not be the reason for an acquisition. Rather, Microsoft wants to use eBay to gain users for MSN. It is this increase in revenue for MSN Search which I do not think is worth over $50 billion to Microsoft.
Perhaps they could offer some combination of cash and stock. They have $48 billion in current assets. That plus 1 MSFT per EBAY would be reasonable, I think. Not that Microsoft's shareholders would be very happy about such a deal. Many of them are pushing for a massive share buyback. If I really did think Microsoft would make an offer, I'd be buying eBay right now.
Is that really worth the over $50 billion that eBay would cost. I realize they have $48 billion in current assets, but there is pressure from many shareholders to use that money for a large buyback, and with the extremely low price of the stock right now, that might be a better investment. I am beginning to think that perhaps Microsoft takes Google too seriously as a competitor. Microsoft's core business is not, and likely never will be, search.
Of course SarbOx is not profitable for businesses. If it were, it would already have been implemented before congress passed the law. The point is that the burdensome new procedures have positive externalities which outweigh the increased costs.
I am not necessarily against prayer completely (insofar as it is a form of meditation) but that is a ridiculous argument. If there really is a man in the sky who will smite you if you don't believe in him, I doubt you will be spared if you pray with that attitude.
Unfortunately, that is not correct. The court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the Native American Church. Thereafter, Congress passed a law exempting the Native American Church from the Controlled Substances Act, which the court has since recognized as protecting the NAC, as well as other groups.
Obviously you make a good argument about electric companies and other monopolies, but your other points are flawed. It is true that you don't have a choice as to whether some corporation you do not do business with affects you, but then you don't have a choice whether some dictatorship invades your democratic company either.
I don't remember where exactly, but I believe the Supreme Court (in a Truong related brief) stated explicitly the president could override 4th ammendment privileges in the case of a National Security issue.
Bullshit. Sure, the fourth amendment might be applied differently in certain situations, but it is never "overridden." It is just as much a part of the Constitution as Article II.
Huh? GAIM is open source. If yahoo gives the protocal information to GAIM, Trillian could easily just look at GAIM's code (not copy it mind you). In practice, when yahoo does try to block Trillian, Trillian has a patch out within a day or two, and it hasn't even happened in quite a while.
That may be what the very top level people like Bin Laden think but not the foot soldiers. The Arab world is simpethetic to Bin Laden's cause for political reasons, and if is support were to dry up, he wouldn't be able to carry out any attacks.
My opinion as to whether or not dry mouth is desirable? I think that's a bit of a streth. Most anyone can have an opinion on that matter, as it is completely subjective. That's why we decided to removed the whole desirable/undesirable thing all togeather. But looking at the bigger picture, it is good to have doctors editing articles, but I do like the democratization of information that wikipedia establishes. Anybody can be heard, so long as they can back up their claims with data. I don't have to be a doctor to use a journal article to support my argument.
This is precicely why we decided to merge the positive and negative sections. Such judgements are too subjective. If it is evidence that marijuana causes dry mouth at all that you are after, here are twosources.
Wikipedia usually works, in my experience, especially on popular or controversial articles. Just within the last hour, another editor and I had a dispute over whether "dry mouth" is a negative or neutral effect of marijuana. We went back and forth a few times but we eventually agreed to combine that postive and negative effect lists, and now it is all settled. Such compromise is not always possible but it is much of the time and the system usually works.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but you are assuming Microsoft's end goal is market share, but that should only be a means to an end. Eventually, market share must lead to profit. In the operating system business, there are obvious reasons why market share is profitable. Market share is far less important in the tax software business. Market share is important for online auction sites, because of network effects, but the auction revenue would not be the reason for an acquisition. Rather, Microsoft wants to use eBay to gain users for MSN. It is this increase in revenue for MSN Search which I do not think is worth over $50 billion to Microsoft.
Perhaps they could offer some combination of cash and stock. They have $48 billion in current assets. That plus 1 MSFT per EBAY would be reasonable, I think. Not that Microsoft's shareholders would be very happy about such a deal. Many of them are pushing for a massive share buyback. If I really did think Microsoft would make an offer, I'd be buying eBay right now.
Wrong. Microsoft's stock has fallen dramatically in the recently, and is trading near its 52-week low.
Is that really worth the over $50 billion that eBay would cost. I realize they have $48 billion in current assets, but there is pressure from many shareholders to use that money for a large buyback, and with the extremely low price of the stock right now, that might be a better investment. I am beginning to think that perhaps Microsoft takes Google too seriously as a competitor. Microsoft's core business is not, and likely never will be, search.
Of course SarbOx is not profitable for businesses. If it were, it would already have been implemented before congress passed the law. The point is that the burdensome new procedures have positive externalities which outweigh the increased costs.
I am not necessarily against prayer completely (insofar as it is a form of meditation) but that is a ridiculous argument. If there really is a man in the sky who will smite you if you don't believe in him, I doubt you will be spared if you pray with that attitude.
And for that reason, all claims about God are inherently unscientific. They fail that falsifiability test miserably.
This breathing thing really needs to stop. Not only does it cause cancer, but it's also the "gateway drug."
Unfortunately, that is not correct. The court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the Native American Church. Thereafter, Congress passed a law exempting the Native American Church from the Controlled Substances Act, which the court has since recognized as protecting the NAC, as well as other groups.
Someone should tell that to the republicans.
Obviously you make a good argument about electric companies and other monopolies, but your other points are flawed. It is true that you don't have a choice as to whether some corporation you do not do business with affects you, but then you don't have a choice whether some dictatorship invades your democratic company either.
Even trig can be defined without angles.
I suppose that is why Planck's Constant is named after him.
I don't remember where exactly, but I believe the Supreme Court (in a Truong related brief) stated explicitly the president could override 4th ammendment privileges in the case of a National Security issue.
Bullshit. Sure, the fourth amendment might be applied differently in certain situations, but it is never "overridden." It is just as much a part of the Constitution as Article II.
Huh? GAIM is open source. If yahoo gives the protocal information to GAIM, Trillian could easily just look at GAIM's code (not copy it mind you). In practice, when yahoo does try to block Trillian, Trillian has a patch out within a day or two, and it hasn't even happened in quite a while.
Perhaps compression doesn't NEED to be lossy, but with XviD it is.
That may be what the very top level people like Bin Laden think but not the foot soldiers. The Arab world is simpethetic to Bin Laden's cause for political reasons, and if is support were to dry up, he wouldn't be able to carry out any attacks.
No it isn't. The point is that the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT applies to both situations.
Then they can just break all of Roche's patents.
My opinion as to whether or not dry mouth is desirable? I think that's a bit of a streth. Most anyone can have an opinion on that matter, as it is completely subjective. That's why we decided to removed the whole desirable/undesirable thing all togeather. But looking at the bigger picture, it is good to have doctors editing articles, but I do like the democratization of information that wikipedia establishes. Anybody can be heard, so long as they can back up their claims with data. I don't have to be a doctor to use a journal article to support my argument.
This is precicely why we decided to merge the positive and negative sections. Such judgements are too subjective. If it is evidence that marijuana causes dry mouth at all that you are after, here are two sources.
Wikipedia usually works, in my experience, especially on popular or controversial articles. Just within the last hour, another editor and I had a dispute over whether "dry mouth" is a negative or neutral effect of marijuana. We went back and forth a few times but we eventually agreed to combine that postive and negative effect lists, and now it is all settled. Such compromise is not always possible but it is much of the time and the system usually works.
Here.
Sounds eerily familiar. Oh wait.
Well, thats not quite accurate. It doesn't so much have to be cooked as the THC needs to be dissolved in some sort of oil.