I'm all for staying within budget and for buying Macs, but our military has a long history of pissing money away. When was the last time a project came in under budget and the surplus was returned to the Treasury. Although $ for the military is an obviously necessary expense, it has also been used for pork barrell programs for senior Congressmen, profits for private business *cough* Haliburton, and any other occasion when the government wants to raise money. After all, anyone who would question a military appropriations bill must be unAmerican. If not, they soon will be.
Yes, this *is* a flawed business model. The purpose of running a business is to increase shareholder value. A plan which misleads others, while those in the know "pump and dump" their shares is a Ponzi scheme, not a business model. How do you think the folks at the "dump" end of the transaction feel.
I guess it's now safe to assume that SCO will be bringing a massive lawsuit against the US government for these licensing fees. Real smart move. This is funny. SCO has run out of feet to shoot themselves in. I wouldn't want McBride running a lemonaide stand for me.
(make sure the law was broken, determine the extent of the crime)
Actually, the factual determination as to whether someone broke the law and comitted a crime is decided by a jury, not a Judge. One of our oldest Constitutional rights is the right to be judged by a jury of our peers. Now if someone would just remind Bishop Ashcroft.
You are right on target with your criticism of the Mac 1 button mouse. It is difficult for me to believe that a company which caters to its customers as much as Apple tries to hasn't figured this out yet. The only M$ product in my house is my Intellimouse. Although it has served me well, I would gladly replace it with something from Apple. Besides, you never know when M$ will stop supporting Mac drivers for their hardware.
Actually, I have my comment filter set to -1. You never know where you'll find an interesting post. I have no difficulty distinguishing between flames, trolls, etc. and intelligent comment. And I *still* haven't seen an anti-Mac bias at/.
How else would you evaluate SCO's future prospects, by looking at their new product line? This lawsuit is all they have going on, and it's not going well.
I don't know why, other than lack of funds for legal fees, a *lot* of other Linux and related companies don't also sue them for the same reason. Keep SCO's lawyers really busy.
I can't comment on what was written on/. before I arrived, but I do disagree with your description of Mac pre-O/S X as a "horrid operating system." I was forced to use Win98SE at work and looked forward to coming home and using my iMac running 9.x. The dramatic difference I experienced using a computer which actually worked for me, and worked reliably and without problems, sold me on the Apple product. Even though I now recognize that O/S X is a better product, I resisted moving up for quite a while. O/S 9x wasn't broken, and I saw no immediate need to replace it.
A question: If computer skills are vital to surviving college, aren't colleges going to look carefully at applicant's already achieved computer skills when selecting students?
Computer literacy should certainly be expected from a graduate of any college today, but the assumption that all students will be computer literate at the start is unfair and obviously income-biased. As difficult as it may be to believe at/., not everybody grew up with a computer or computer skills.
This is pathetic. On one level, RIAA members are pushing their products at you through free radio, free television, movies, singing "God Bless America" at ballgames, etc. while just below, they are trying to charge you for using their products. The difference seems to be that *their* choice is free, but your choice costs $. I don't like that attitude.
Apologies in advance as I mean you no offense, but . ..
1. "Nobody invests in the stock market with a time frame of less than 10 years until they need the money, it is stupid."
I assume that you mean that an investor, as opposed to a speculator, having done their own due dilligence, intends to be invested in a company for the long term, unless some emergency requires the use of those invested funds. No argument here.
2."Speculators can change the short term price of stock, but have little effect on the long term price. Don't worry about the short term investers, because either they will be out before you need the money, or you can afford to wait them out a little for a better price before you put it in. "
Speculators have no place in a rational market. In speculation, *when* you buy and sell is much more important than *what* you buy or sell. That, is a poker game, not capitlism. I do worry about what speculators can do, as the ruins of pension plans (both private and State sponsored) and retirement funds, directly caused by stocks that were manipulated, are abundant. The problem is that you have two groups of people, ostensibly playing the same game, but they are playing by different rules. To a speculator, K. Lay, A. Fastow and J. Skilling's sin was in not keeping the mirage going long enough; to an investor, these people are simply criminals. I understand hedge strategies, derivatve instruments and various flavors of arbitrage, and still believe that they are playing a different game. It is a hustle, not capitalism.
3."As Warren Buffet (second richest person in the world, and got it all in stocks) said something like "Short term the stock market is a voting machine, long term it is a weighing machine.""
I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to talk about Buffett.
(Remember, he also said something like, "The opening of the stock market in the morning is an opportunity for someone else to do something foolish.")
Buffett is a prime example of not just how to succeed, but how to do things the right way. He did not succeed through "shorting" or other market tricks, he didn't take advantage of his shareholders by overpaying himself with salary and options, his wealth is due to the fact that he simply understood and applied the sound and incisive analytical methods taught to him by his Finance professor, Benjamin Graham. Graham's 1934 "Security Analysis" is still a sort of bible in some homes, including my own. What he teaches is that any sort of reckless behavior, his word for it is "speculation", is an indication of bad business practice. 70 years later and it's still true. Business is not just an activity; it's the way you conduct that activity.;-)
" (Of course if you had made a good investment you would be willing to stick out the fall knowing it will come back, but...)"
There is a very clear difference between speculation and investment. I only concern myself with investment. Try to think of the benefit or harm of a particular type of speculation on the company and its shareholders. Talking about "stock", as opposed to the piece of a real business that a share of stock represents, is the speculator's game. There are real people who have invested money they really need in publicly traded companies; their interests should not be trifled with.
Actually bringing and dragging out a suit without merit can subject the Plaintiff (SCO) to sanctions. Whether the Court will have the balls to sanction them is one question; whether SCO will have anything left to take is another.
What this post and the previous post highlight well is why "shorting" a stock should be illegal. It is clearly gambling, not investment. It artificially impacts the price of the stock without benefitting the company or its shareholders at all, and it unwillingly puts the real shareholders in a position where they are "partners" with speculators who need the price of the stock to go down to make a profit. Would you want a partner like that.
Anyone who needs to rely on the advice of a broker should not be investing in Securities.
As a loyal Mac user and a regular/. reader, I have not found an anti-Mac bias here. While/. seems to be more concerned with OSS and Linux (somebody has to do it), coverage of Apple has been taken seriously. The reports of Jobs' "delivery" of Panther and the G-5's were near orgasmic. I have never been ridiculed here for my choice to use the Mac platform, and I would ask the above poster to provide examples to support his/her claim of an anti-Mac bias. Other than your suggestion of bias, I've always felt welcome at / .
Isn't this the real point. How many Windoze users have "looked around" at the competition and chosen M$ as their best option, as compared to the great number of people who have had their o/s choice made for them by their employer. M$' 90% market share doesn't impress quite as much when you realize that 89% of the end users were not given a choice. From the admittedly biased perspective of this (former Win95,98SE,XP) and current Mac and Libranet user, Win(xx) looks and feels like a distro that isn't trying very hard. There are several Linux distro's I would recommend and rely on before Windoze; frankly it's difficult to imagine a situation where I would choose to use Windoze over anything.
Obviously a typo on my part. If you want to suggest a step 3, I'm all ears. However, I don't think that my lack of dexterity undercuts the argument. Please tell me what is missing.
"It helps that most of the people Apple has been targeting with their service have at least one of the following qualities: rabid devotion to Apple no matter (so they'll buy it just to make Apple look good), rabid devotion to being as "hip" as possible (so they'll buy it just to make themselves look good)."
I would like to know how you arrived at this incisive, all inclusive, Apple customer demographic. I only buy what I need and can afford (no iPod yet), and I gave up on being hip 25 years ago. I have no interest in making Apple look good, they seem to be quite good at it themselves.
"Frankly, if I were Apple I would make a version of iTunes and the Music Store that are compatible with Microsoft Windows as soon as possible-- BEFORE Microsoft and someone else come along."
I would love to be a fly on the wall during the M$--RIAA negotiations:
M$: How much will it cost for us to buy you? RIAA: We're not for sale, however we will sell you a limited license to use our product. M$: Wait a minute, that's our line. RIAA: And you'd better act fast; we have solid information that college kids are using your o/s to illegally pirate music, and we are just about to sue them.
Realistically, do you expect that a Wintel version of the iTunes store will work as easily and reliably as Apple's. I would reverse your market plan and use iTunes to sell Macs rather than let the bitter taste left by an M$/RIAA hybrid do the job for me. You really think that M$ would allow iTunes Music Store to work well with their o/s. It's possible, but where's the precedent?
Slashdot Mirror
More to the point: Would you stick *your* dick into something made by M$.
I'm all for staying within budget and for buying Macs, but our military has a long history of pissing money away. When was the last time a project came in under budget and the surplus was returned to the Treasury.
Although $ for the military is an obviously necessary expense, it has also been used for pork barrell programs for senior Congressmen, profits for private business *cough* Haliburton, and any other occasion when the government wants to raise money. After all, anyone who would question a military appropriations bill must be unAmerican. If not, they soon will be.
Really, since when?
Yes, this *is* a flawed business model. The purpose of running a business is to increase shareholder value. A plan which misleads others, while those in the know "pump and dump" their shares is a Ponzi scheme, not a business model. How do you think the folks at the "dump" end of the transaction feel.
I guess it's now safe to assume that SCO will be bringing a massive lawsuit against the US government for these licensing fees. Real smart move. This is funny. SCO has run out of feet to shoot themselves in. I wouldn't want McBride running a lemonaide stand for me.
At -1, I find an anti civil discourse bias, an anti education bias, and an anti acting like grown ups bias. But no particular anti Mac bias.
(make sure the law was broken, determine the extent of the crime)
Actually, the factual determination as to whether someone broke the law and comitted a crime is decided by a jury, not a Judge. One of our oldest Constitutional rights is the right to be judged by a jury of our peers. Now if someone would just remind Bishop Ashcroft.
You are right on target with your criticism of the Mac 1 button mouse. It is difficult for me to believe that a company which caters to its customers as much as Apple tries to hasn't figured this out yet. The only M$ product in my house is my Intellimouse. Although it has served me well, I would gladly replace it with something from Apple. Besides, you never know when M$ will stop supporting Mac drivers for their hardware.
Actually, I have my comment filter set to -1. You never know where you'll find an interesting post. I have no difficulty distinguishing between flames, trolls, etc. and intelligent comment. And I *still* haven't seen an anti-Mac bias at /.
How else would you evaluate SCO's future prospects, by looking at their new product line? This lawsuit is all they have going on, and it's not going well. I don't know why, other than lack of funds for legal fees, a *lot* of other Linux and related companies don't also sue them for the same reason. Keep SCO's lawyers really busy.
I can't comment on what was written on /. before I arrived, but I do disagree with your description of Mac pre-O/S X as a "horrid operating system." I was forced to use Win98SE at work and looked forward to coming home and using my iMac running 9.x. The dramatic difference I experienced using a computer which actually worked for me, and worked reliably and without problems, sold me on the Apple product. Even though I now recognize that O/S X is a better product, I resisted moving up for quite a while. O/S 9x wasn't broken, and I saw no immediate need to replace it.
All human beings have the right to be treated as a subject, not an object. I'm afraid we're losing sight of that again.
A question: If computer skills are vital to surviving college, aren't colleges going to look carefully at applicant's already achieved computer skills when selecting students?
Computer literacy should certainly be expected from a graduate of any college today, but the assumption that all students will be computer literate at the start is unfair and obviously income-biased. As difficult as it may be to believe at /., not everybody grew up with a computer or computer skills.
This is pathetic. On one level, RIAA members are pushing their products at you through free radio, free television, movies, singing "God Bless America" at ballgames, etc. while just below, they are trying to charge you for using their products. The difference seems to be that *their* choice is free, but your choice costs $. I don't like that attitude.
Apologies in advance as I mean you no offense, but . . .
;-)
1. "Nobody invests in the stock market with a time frame of less than 10 years until they need the money, it is stupid."
I assume that you mean that an investor, as opposed to a speculator, having done their own due dilligence, intends to be invested in a company for the long term, unless some emergency requires the use of those invested funds. No argument here.
2."Speculators can change the short term price of stock, but have little effect on the long term price. Don't worry about the short term investers, because either they will be out before you need the money, or you can afford to wait them out a little for a better price before you put it in. "
Speculators have no place in a rational market. In speculation, *when* you buy and sell is much more important than *what* you buy or sell. That, is a poker game, not capitlism.
I do worry about what speculators can do, as the ruins of pension plans (both private and State sponsored) and retirement funds, directly caused by stocks that were manipulated, are abundant.
The problem is that you have two groups of people, ostensibly playing the same game, but they are playing by different rules. To a speculator, K. Lay, A. Fastow and J. Skilling's sin was in not keeping the mirage going long enough; to an investor, these people are simply criminals. I understand hedge strategies, derivatve instruments and various flavors of arbitrage, and still believe that they are playing a different game. It is a hustle, not capitalism.
3."As Warren Buffet (second richest person in the world, and got it all in stocks) said something like "Short term the stock market is a voting machine, long term it is a weighing machine.""
I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to talk about Buffett.
(Remember, he also said something like, "The opening of the stock market in the morning is an opportunity for someone else to do something foolish.")
Buffett is a prime example of not just how to succeed, but how to do things the right way. He did not succeed through "shorting" or other market tricks, he didn't take advantage of his shareholders by overpaying himself with salary and options, his wealth is due to the fact that he simply understood and applied the sound and incisive analytical methods taught to him by his Finance professor, Benjamin Graham. Graham's 1934 "Security Analysis" is still a sort of bible in some homes, including my own. What he teaches is that any sort of reckless behavior, his word for it is "speculation", is an indication of bad business practice. 70 years later and it's still true. Business is not just an activity; it's the way you conduct that activity.
" (Of course if you had made a good investment you would be willing to stick out the fall knowing it will come back, but ...)"
There is a very clear difference between speculation and investment. I only concern myself with investment. Try to think of the benefit or harm of a particular type of speculation on the company and its shareholders.
Talking about "stock", as opposed to the piece of a real business that a share of stock represents, is the speculator's game. There are real people who have invested money they really need in publicly traded companies; their interests should not be trifled with.
Actually bringing and dragging out a suit without merit can subject the Plaintiff (SCO) to sanctions. Whether the Court will have the balls to sanction them is one question; whether SCO will have anything left to take is another.
What this post and the previous post highlight well is why "shorting" a stock should be illegal. It is clearly gambling, not investment. It artificially impacts the price of the stock without benefitting the company or its shareholders at all, and it unwillingly puts the real shareholders in a position where they are "partners" with speculators who need the price of the stock to go down to make a profit. Would you want a partner like that.
Anyone who needs to rely on the advice of a broker should not be investing in Securities.
"Ars Technica is more anti-Mac than Slashdot is."
/. reader, I have not found an anti-Mac bias here. While /. seems to be more concerned with OSS and Linux (somebody has to do it), coverage of Apple has been taken seriously. The reports of Jobs' "delivery" of Panther and the G-5's were near orgasmic. I have never been ridiculed here for my choice to use the Mac platform, and I would ask the above poster to provide examples to support his/her claim of an anti-Mac bias. Other than your suggestion of bias, I've always felt welcome at / .
As a loyal Mac user and a regular
Isn't this the real point. How many Windoze users have "looked around" at the competition and chosen M$ as their best option, as compared to the great number of people who have had their o/s choice made for them by their employer. M$' 90% market share doesn't impress quite as much when you realize that 89% of the end users were not given a choice.
From the admittedly biased perspective of this (former Win95,98SE,XP) and current Mac and Libranet user, Win(xx) looks and feels like a distro that isn't trying very hard. There are several Linux distro's I would recommend and rely on before Windoze; frankly it's difficult to imagine a situation where I would choose to use Windoze over anything.
You are both correct, I didn't remember the ads. My apology for not recognizing and appreciating your sly humor.
I would guess you believe that lil' old Apple making a deal way before the big boys do is purely an accident.
Obviously a typo on my part. If you want to suggest a step 3, I'm all ears. However, I don't think that my lack of dexterity undercuts the argument.
Please tell me what is missing.
"It helps that most of the people Apple has been targeting with their service have at least one of the following qualities: rabid devotion to Apple no matter (so they'll buy it just to make Apple look good), rabid devotion to being as "hip" as possible (so they'll buy it just to make themselves look good)."
I would like to know how you arrived at this incisive, all inclusive, Apple customer demographic. I only buy what I need and can afford (no iPod yet), and I gave up on being hip 25 years ago. I have no interest in making Apple look good, they seem to be quite good at it themselves.
"Frankly, if I were Apple I would make a version of iTunes and the Music Store that are compatible with Microsoft Windows as soon as possible-- BEFORE Microsoft and someone else come along."
I would love to be a fly on the wall during the M$--RIAA negotiations:
M$: How much will it cost for us to buy you?
RIAA: We're not for sale, however we will sell you a limited license to use our product.
M$: Wait a minute, that's our line.
RIAA: And you'd better act fast; we have solid information that college kids are using your o/s to illegally pirate music, and we are just about to sue them.
Realistically, do you expect that a Wintel version of the iTunes store will work as easily and reliably as Apple's. I would reverse your market plan and use iTunes to sell Macs rather than let the bitter taste left by an M$/RIAA hybrid do the job for me.
You really think that M$ would allow iTunes Music Store to work well with their o/s. It's possible, but where's the precedent?