What are the tax implications of leasing and then purchasing at the end of the lease, as the parent suggested?
As all things, the answer is "It depends".
I'm a fan of the $1 buyout lease, for tax purposes this is the same as buying. If the lease is structured more in line with a FMV (Fair Market Value) buyout, it would usually not be treated as such, and the leasing company would take the write off (helpful for a start up that won't be making a profit and thus makes no use of the tax write off, since the leasing company IS profitable and thus can bundle the tax savings into the payment
Another potential benefit is in the company books. Since the company doesn't OWN the equipment, it doesn't show up as an asset, and since it can be treated as a monthly "service", the debt doesn't have to be disclosed on the books like a loan would.
FYI Judicial Estoppel precludes a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position taken by him or her in a prior legal proceeding.
Still, This isn't why they are trying to implement copy protection and it won't affect their attempts to create an uncopyable media. If they can stop you from ripping to MP3, they can keep the song/movie/whatever off the P2P networks. The fact that its impossible to make it uncopyable without making it unlistenable won't stop them from trying.
The 60Hz refresh is bad for your eyes, LCDs are nicer to your eyes in general.
LCD's have a different sort of refresh, the 60 hz isn't really a big deal unless you're talking about a fast moving action game. CRT's work by zapping phosphorous spots with an electron gun, immediately after being zapped it begins to fade, to perhaps 50% brightness in 20ms, about the time the gun makes a return trip. So a CRT pulses in time to its refresh rate; and wouldn't you know it, the AC current pulses at 60Hz, means some kinds of lights will also pulse at 60 Hz. Put the two pulses together and the can create an interference pattern that will drive some folks bonkers, strain you eyes subtly, etc. etc.
An LCD pixel on the other hand works like a switch, the pixel is on, letting the back light through, until it is told to turn off. The 60Hz refresh rate only corresponds to how often the pixel "might" get told to change, there is no pulsing.
Of course these are some gross generalizations and I'm sure someone will pop up to tell me how I have it all wrong, even when I'm right.
Most crashes these days are software problems, and OSX isn't the one suffering from them...
I think that people would be surprised by the number of crashes they blame on software that are actually caused by hardware. A few year back I had great luck fixing random software crashes by replacing the NIC. Never understood HOW it was affecting things, but the evidence was pretty clear. Remember the Mac has the benefit of a consistent hardware underpinning and generally high quality components, vs the Wintel world of cheapest component available.
Throgh the benefit of selective enforcement, its unlikely Intel or MS would come under fire, though they might sponsor legislation that defined significant non-infringing uses if this case goes badly. More likely you'd see VCR manufacturers, DVR/CDR/etc makers etc. sponsoring the legislation since they are likely next in the crosshair...
Any evidence this case survived appeal? Jury's do not have a blank check to make their decisions, and if a higher court finds they did not base their decision on law, it would be overturned.
This case was obviously appealed, but I suppose the more pedestrian news of this case being overturned doesn't rank a mention.
You haven't been to Hong Kong lately, where every single person seems to have multiple phones. I'm talking 5-year-olds (literally!).
This is far more of a cultural thing, it has little to do with carriers, beyond the fact that OUR carriers aren't targeting 5 year olds thakfully.
You haven't read Engadget, where they go on and on at the new innovative phones you can only get in Asia (because you don't have to deal with carriers deciding what phones you get to use).
No, I haven't. But unless they specialize in ranting just the cell phone market, they also go on about all the other technology the asian markets get first. Its a cultural thing again, as they are far more willing to churn through new techs than we in the US are. The Asian says "I have to have that!", the American says "Why do I need that?". Again, this has little to do with the carriers
You seem to have missed that people can buy phones relatively cheaply WITHOUT carrier subsidies.
You seem to have missed that people can buy phones for FREE (as in beer) with carrier subsidies. Phone portability is less of an issue when you can get a new phone free every time you re-sign.
You seem to have missed that NO ONE in HK has contracts and can switch providers daily, while nearly everyone in the US has one to get the phone discounts.
Unless you can show me stats that Hong Kong users switch plans significantly more often than once a year, I'm not really buying this as a huge advantage. Is it better for consumers? In theory. You could "try a carrier for a month and go back when their service sucks" But I've been with the same carrier for 7 years, and get a shiny new phone about every 18 months for free. If I really want to jump carriers before my contract ends I can pay back the subsidy or drop to a minimal plan until my contract expires.
Hong Kong has a hugely competitive mobile phone market, both forcing better features, better phones, and better service.
Sprint tried the no subsidy/no contract plan for years, it wasn't really working for them. Given a choice, most prefered the subsidized phone. I understand they've finally abandoned this now.
ATT, Verizon, T-Mobile, Nextel, Cingular, Virgin, Sprint. Thast 7 carriers I can name off the top of my head (Ok, two of the 4 are now gone in the last year due to mergers). I think its safe to say the USA has a very competitive market as well.
Keep in mind too, while Hong Kong has 100 or so square Miles to wire for covergae, the USA has more like 3.5 million. This affect the carriers ability to provide a ubiquitous infrastructure.
But it is of course dishonest to both your customers and shareholders.
But according to the article the problem isn't that the phone isn't ready, the problem is the carriers don't want to sell it unless they can charge $.99 each song you install. By announcing it, consumers can pressure the carriers to support the phone.
Of course, this sounds a bit odd, as carriers still sell phones that don't support all those wacky pictures and backgrounds, and being the only carrier to sell the iPod phone seems like a great draw to me. So Moto might be playing the blame game as a diversion to buy more time, though I can't imagine there's anything complex about taping a cell phone to an iPod beyond where do the buttons go and how long do the batteries last...
And when you buy an iTunes song there is. Since the discussion was about DRM, I assumed he was refering to media that included DRM, since I don't consider the copy prevention schemes on CD's DRM; they are encumbrences, though they may also be bundled with DRM software (which does include a license) that bypasses those encumbrances.
And you are being dishonest for trying to paint that strawman nonsense onto opponents
No, I am proactively making the statement because many on Slashdot DO believe sharing with all your "freinds" on the internet is fair use.
His "proposal" was was that all this DRM stuff is crap
And I proposed that the correct way to respond to DRM schemes you don't like is to not buy the product. The first major DRM solution, DIVX discs, disappeared when the public failed to embrace it. NOT to buy them and bypass them because you can.
and that we operate UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW
We operate under good old property laws as well, if someone walks into you house they are violating the law. Why do people bother putting locks on their doors? Why not just operating under good old tresspassing laws? 30 years ago folks didn't lock their doors, why should we do it now?
DRM does not throw out copyright law, suddenly you're the one with the stawman arguement.
You *do* realize that RIAA members sell music with no DRM, right?
Yes. I endorse buying that music instead of the DRM music. I endorse stripping the "CD" logo from music that does not meet the standards for audio CD's. I endorse changing copyright laws from the insane life+90 years to 5 years. I endorse preventing the record companies from shooting themselves in the foot buy price fixing and all their other market controlls like payola so everybody buys DVD's and video games instead. I endorse resisting DRM schemes by not buying DRM encumbered media.
The eliminating copyright bit came from the summary, which the parent "Agreed" with, "the view that if a song, movie, book, etc. is DRM'd then it isn't truly mine". I pointed out that buying a CD did not give him ownership of the songs, the copyright remains with the seller, in which way it is like a license. The sentence immediately before one you quoted earlier was "Technically you generally do have the right to use that content in another form, unless the terms of the license agreement say you don't. DRM protected content usually includes such provisions, such as iTunes allowing you to burn CD's of the material. The Fair Use concept generally allows you to use it for your own enjoyment so long as you don't make a profit."
He's talking about the stupid idea that a NONINFRINGING person is doing something wrong if they "circumvent" the DRM for a perfactly legal and legitimate use
Technically, I beleive it is now illegal, though we can add that to the list of stupid laws a oppose.
I will accept your DRMed media if you except my DRMed cash
If you don't accept the terms, don't buy the media. Whats so hard about that? Just don't use it to justify obtaining the content in a non-legal way. Those are the terms the people who paid for the content offered, as the previous posters pointed out, you are buying a license to the content, you don't own the song itself. If it did work that way, I could have made a fortune selling Nike the rights to my Beatles White album.
P.S. I dont think the parent you are replying to mentioned anything about the theft you keep bandying around.
Better check you eyes bud, I didn't use that word. Nor the homonym for steel. I don't think any of us mentioned that you support puppy defenestration, either
But inst robots.txt only about being polite and not an actual binding contract?
Yep. Its a "convention"; webmasters use robots.txt to communicate what parts of their site should not be indexed, because the content might be transient (Not there when the user follows the search engine link), or have other reasons not to want it indexed (Preventing comment spam). If a webmaster makes a page publically available, they inherently don't have a say in who reads it. Web sites are billboards, not private homes (unless you secure it with a password or other effective scheme).
Now, whether Google has a right to offer their content, or whether Fench law or American law or even Quatars laws apply is a whole 'nuther story..
From the summary: Personally, I take the view that if a song, movie, book, etc. is DRM'd then it isn't truly mine
Exactly. You didn't write the song, make the move, etc. If you want to own the content, create it or pay someone to create. It cost more than $.99 a song, or $19.99 a movie.
From the parent: The pretense is that every media container you own - CD, DVD, book, magazine, etc - is a licensed copy of that type of media alone. You do not have the right of use for the exact same content in another form.
Technically you generally do have the right to use that content in another form, unless the terms of the license agreement say you don't. DRM protected content usually includes such provisions, such as iTunes allowing you to burn CD's of the material. The Fair Use concept generally allows you to use it for your own enjoyment so long as you don't make a profit. The wholesale redistribution of that content via Peer to Peer networks should not be considered "Fair Use".
This is all nonsense, of course. And we have let them build a business on the nonsense for far too long
So your proposal is to stop allowing people to profit from their creations? Which might work for simple works, like songs, where a an artists might be driven by the need to create enough to invest his time writing new songs, but who would invest more than a few thousand to create a movie that movie theaters could just copy and display for free? Well, the Government and other advertisers I guess.
I have long since drawn my own line in the sand.
Great! Where can I check out the content you created and licensed under the Creative Commons license? So long as your line is "I won't purchase DRM media", thats fine. Just don't extend that to "I don't like the terms you offer this non-neccessity product under, but choose to consume it anyway without compensating you".
And of course, there's the obvious counter-example: where are all the BIND and Apache worms? Talk about "sheer number of devices"!
The problem with writing a BIND/APACHE worm is you need to know what's running underneath it, Is it SUN/AIX/Linux/HP/something else? Certainly not the lack of remotely exploitable holes. God knows I only run BIND in a CHROOT environment on a dedicated disk partition (even have a script to automate the partitions creation).
Going from a Tivo to Comcast's DVR is an exercise in frustration. Suggestions are good, but the responsiveness of a Tivo to Comcast DVR is the difference between a sports car and shouting directions to Grandma while locked in the trunk of her Fairlane. I'd love to switch to Comcast for their HDTV, but refuse to give up my DirecTivo(s).
All other things being equal, smaller pixels are better
I've heard size does't matter, wider is better, but this is a new one;)
All other things being equal, smaller pixels are better. You can always increase your font size on a display with smaller pixels, but you can only fit so much content on a display with a limited number of them.
I'm looking forward to the day someone delivers a truely resolution independant interface, and I expect it will arrive on the Mac first. But for now, even many web pages choose to force font size on me. So no, I can't always increase font size.
Run the math, the 24" widescreen (16:10) is 12.7" vertically, the 20" is 12.0" (ballpark); they both push 1200 pixels vertically. So they pixel size is just about identical; but the widescreen has about 35% more screen area/20% more pixels. Perhaps the measure you really want is pixels per square inch.
14.1"(1400x1050): 15.4kppsi
15"(1400x1050): 13.6kppsi
2001FP: 10.0kppsi
2405FP: 8.9kppsi
17"(1280x1024): 9.5kppsi
19"(1280x1024): 7.5kppsi
So the pixel density is right in line with conventional other desktop panels, a little better than your 213t. I'm not sure about its pixels aren't even close to square, are you refering to trying to force 4x3 images onto a 16x10 screen? Games are the only thing I can see forcing this, and the Dell at least has a mode to handle that, just like widescreen TV's.
We had an offer to be purchased for nearly $200 million; and the VCs turned it down either looking for a much bigger offer or an IPO.
...but to the VCs any sale under a quarter billion was a rounding error not worth the time they put into it.
I think you missed the point. The VC's thought an IPO would fetch more money, so it was $200 million now or $400 million in 6 months. VC's invest in companies that have big growth potential, Founder's only accept money from VC's if they need more than they can raise via Freinds & Family and Bank loans.
If the VC thought $200 million was a good price for the company, they would have taken it.
Are you saying you would be angry at FedEx instead of the USPS?
I think thats his point. Prior to FedEx, you were happy for that twice weekly deliver. Now Nanook, your neighbor, is getting his mail 5 days a week and you're insanely jealous. If FedEx had never offered that service, there'd be no jealous, and everyone would rave about how those twice weekly postal deliveries rocks compared to the old monthly dog sled team.
Granted, its the stupidest thing in the world, declaring any non-universally accessible technology/service evil, but its Slashdot, what do you want?
Slashdot Mirror
As all things, the answer is "It depends".
I'm a fan of the $1 buyout lease, for tax purposes this is the same as buying. If the lease is structured more in line with a FMV (Fair Market Value) buyout, it would usually not be treated as such, and the leasing company would take the write off (helpful for a start up that won't be making a profit and thus makes no use of the tax write off, since the leasing company IS profitable and thus can bundle the tax savings into the payment
Another potential benefit is in the company books. Since the company doesn't OWN the equipment, it doesn't show up as an asset, and since it can be treated as a monthly "service", the debt doesn't have to be disclosed on the books like a loan would.
Still, This isn't why they are trying to implement copy protection and it won't affect their attempts to create an uncopyable media. If they can stop you from ripping to MP3, they can keep the song/movie/whatever off the P2P networks. The fact that its impossible to make it uncopyable without making it unlistenable won't stop them from trying.
LCD's have a different sort of refresh, the 60 hz isn't really a big deal unless you're talking about a fast moving action game. CRT's work by zapping phosphorous spots with an electron gun, immediately after being zapped it begins to fade, to perhaps 50% brightness in 20ms, about the time the gun makes a return trip. So a CRT pulses in time to its refresh rate; and wouldn't you know it, the AC current pulses at 60Hz, means some kinds of lights will also pulse at 60 Hz. Put the two pulses together and the can create an interference pattern that will drive some folks bonkers, strain you eyes subtly, etc. etc.
An LCD pixel on the other hand works like a switch, the pixel is on, letting the back light through, until it is told to turn off. The 60Hz refresh rate only corresponds to how often the pixel "might" get told to change, there is no pulsing.
Of course these are some gross generalizations and I'm sure someone will pop up to tell me how I have it all wrong, even when I'm right.
You are confusing Anarchy and Communism. It should be:
Step 4: Buy a compound with profit and stockpile weapons!
I think that people would be surprised by the number of crashes they blame on software that are actually caused by hardware. A few year back I had great luck fixing random software crashes by replacing the NIC. Never understood HOW it was affecting things, but the evidence was pretty clear. Remember the Mac has the benefit of a consistent hardware underpinning and generally high quality components, vs the Wintel world of cheapest component available.
Yes, keep telling yourself your choice of OS can magically prevent hardware failures.
I can assure you happiness had it coming, always with the smiling. Don't even get me started on the incessant singing, too!
Throgh the benefit of selective enforcement, its unlikely Intel or MS would come under fire, though they might sponsor legislation that defined significant non-infringing uses if this case goes badly. More likely you'd see VCR manufacturers, DVR/CDR/etc makers etc. sponsoring the legislation since they are likely next in the crosshair...
This case was obviously appealed, but I suppose the more pedestrian news of this case being overturned doesn't rank a mention.
Exactly! Keep the decisions in Congress, where they are more easily bought and paid for!
From the sound of it, the court is taking a reasonable approach. Have some faith in the institution, they have a hell of a track record.
This is far more of a cultural thing, it has little to do with carriers, beyond the fact that OUR carriers aren't targeting 5 year olds thakfully.
You haven't read Engadget, where they go on and on at the new innovative phones you can only get in Asia (because you don't have to deal with carriers deciding what phones you get to use).
No, I haven't. But unless they specialize in ranting just the cell phone market, they also go on about all the other technology the asian markets get first. Its a cultural thing again, as they are far more willing to churn through new techs than we in the US are. The Asian says "I have to have that!", the American says "Why do I need that?". Again, this has little to do with the carriers
You seem to have missed that people can buy phones relatively cheaply WITHOUT carrier subsidies.
You seem to have missed that people can buy phones for FREE (as in beer) with carrier subsidies. Phone portability is less of an issue when you can get a new phone free every time you re-sign.
You seem to have missed that NO ONE in HK has contracts and can switch providers daily, while nearly everyone in the US has one to get the phone discounts.
Unless you can show me stats that Hong Kong users switch plans significantly more often than once a year, I'm not really buying this as a huge advantage. Is it better for consumers? In theory. You could "try a carrier for a month and go back when their service sucks" But I've been with the same carrier for 7 years, and get a shiny new phone about every 18 months for free. If I really want to jump carriers before my contract ends I can pay back the subsidy or drop to a minimal plan until my contract expires.
Hong Kong has a hugely competitive mobile phone market, both forcing better features, better phones, and better service.
Sprint tried the no subsidy/no contract plan for years, it wasn't really working for them. Given a choice, most prefered the subsidized phone. I understand they've finally abandoned this now.
ATT, Verizon, T-Mobile, Nextel, Cingular, Virgin, Sprint. Thast 7 carriers I can name off the top of my head (Ok, two of the 4 are now gone in the last year due to mergers). I think its safe to say the USA has a very competitive market as well.
Keep in mind too, while Hong Kong has 100 or so square Miles to wire for covergae, the USA has more like 3.5 million. This affect the carriers ability to provide a ubiquitous infrastructure.
But according to the article the problem isn't that the phone isn't ready, the problem is the carriers don't want to sell it unless they can charge $.99 each song you install. By announcing it, consumers can pressure the carriers to support the phone.
Of course, this sounds a bit odd, as carriers still sell phones that don't support all those wacky pictures and backgrounds, and being the only carrier to sell the iPod phone seems like a great draw to me. So Moto might be playing the blame game as a diversion to buy more time, though I can't imagine there's anything complex about taping a cell phone to an iPod beyond where do the buttons go and how long do the batteries last...
And when you buy an iTunes song there is. Since the discussion was about DRM, I assumed he was refering to media that included DRM, since I don't consider the copy prevention schemes on CD's DRM; they are encumbrences, though they may also be bundled with DRM software (which does include a license) that bypasses those encumbrances.
And you are being dishonest for trying to paint that strawman nonsense onto opponents
No, I am proactively making the statement because many on Slashdot DO believe sharing with all your "freinds" on the internet is fair use.
His "proposal" was was that all this DRM stuff is crap
And I proposed that the correct way to respond to DRM schemes you don't like is to not buy the product. The first major DRM solution, DIVX discs, disappeared when the public failed to embrace it. NOT to buy them and bypass them because you can.
and that we operate UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW
We operate under good old property laws as well, if someone walks into you house they are violating the law. Why do people bother putting locks on their doors? Why not just operating under good old tresspassing laws? 30 years ago folks didn't lock their doors, why should we do it now?
DRM does not throw out copyright law, suddenly you're the one with the stawman arguement.
You *do* realize that RIAA members sell music with no DRM, right?
Yes. I endorse buying that music instead of the DRM music. I endorse stripping the "CD" logo from music that does not meet the standards for audio CD's. I endorse changing copyright laws from the insane life+90 years to 5 years. I endorse preventing the record companies from shooting themselves in the foot buy price fixing and all their other market controlls like payola so everybody buys DVD's and video games instead. I endorse resisting DRM schemes by not buying DRM encumbered media.
The eliminating copyright bit came from the summary, which the parent "Agreed" with, "the view that if a song, movie, book, etc. is DRM'd then it isn't truly mine". I pointed out that buying a CD did not give him ownership of the songs, the copyright remains with the seller, in which way it is like a license. The sentence immediately before one you quoted earlier was "Technically you generally do have the right to use that content in another form, unless the terms of the license agreement say you don't. DRM protected content usually includes such provisions, such as iTunes allowing you to burn CD's of the material. The Fair Use concept generally allows you to use it for your own enjoyment so long as you don't make a profit."
He's talking about the stupid idea that a NONINFRINGING person is doing something wrong if they "circumvent" the DRM for a perfactly legal and legitimate use
Technically, I beleive it is now illegal, though we can add that to the list of stupid laws a oppose.
He was a member of the ADC program, not an employee.
If you don't accept the terms, don't buy the media. Whats so hard about that? Just don't use it to justify obtaining the content in a non-legal way. Those are the terms the people who paid for the content offered, as the previous posters pointed out, you are buying a license to the content, you don't own the song itself. If it did work that way, I could have made a fortune selling Nike the rights to my Beatles White album.
P.S. I dont think the parent you are replying to mentioned anything about the theft you keep bandying around.
Better check you eyes bud, I didn't use that word. Nor the homonym for steel. I don't think any of us mentioned that you support puppy defenestration, either
Yep. Its a "convention"; webmasters use robots.txt to communicate what parts of their site should not be indexed, because the content might be transient (Not there when the user follows the search engine link), or have other reasons not to want it indexed (Preventing comment spam). If a webmaster makes a page publically available, they inherently don't have a say in who reads it. Web sites are billboards, not private homes (unless you secure it with a password or other effective scheme).
Now, whether Google has a right to offer their content, or whether Fench law or American law or even Quatars laws apply is a whole 'nuther story..
Personally, I take the view that if a song, movie, book, etc. is DRM'd then it isn't truly mine
Exactly. You didn't write the song, make the move, etc. If you want to own the content, create it or pay someone to create. It cost more than $.99 a song, or $19.99 a movie. From the parent:
The pretense is that every media container you own - CD, DVD, book, magazine, etc - is a licensed copy of that type of media alone. You do not have the right of use for the exact same content in another form.
Technically you generally do have the right to use that content in another form, unless the terms of the license agreement say you don't. DRM protected content usually includes such provisions, such as iTunes allowing you to burn CD's of the material. The Fair Use concept generally allows you to use it for your own enjoyment so long as you don't make a profit. The wholesale redistribution of that content via Peer to Peer networks should not be considered "Fair Use".
This is all nonsense, of course. And we have let them build a business on the nonsense for far too long
So your proposal is to stop allowing people to profit from their creations? Which might work for simple works, like songs, where a an artists might be driven by the need to create enough to invest his time writing new songs, but who would invest more than a few thousand to create a movie that movie theaters could just copy and display for free? Well, the Government and other advertisers I guess.
I have long since drawn my own line in the sand.
Great! Where can I check out the content you created and licensed under the Creative Commons license? So long as your line is "I won't purchase DRM media", thats fine. Just don't extend that to "I don't like the terms you offer this non-neccessity product under, but choose to consume it anyway without compensating you".
The problem with writing a BIND/APACHE worm is you need to know what's running underneath it, Is it SUN/AIX/Linux/HP/something else? Certainly not the lack of remotely exploitable holes. God knows I only run BIND in a CHROOT environment on a dedicated disk partition (even have a script to automate the partitions creation).
Brilliant! Except the Iraq prisoners there weren't America's own people.
Idiots like you keep Rush and his Cohorts in business.
Welcome to the bizzare world of Webmaster Copyright Interpretations. Its quite comical, and deadly serious in their book.
Going from a Tivo to Comcast's DVR is an exercise in frustration. Suggestions are good, but the responsiveness of a Tivo to Comcast DVR is the difference between a sports car and shouting directions to Grandma while locked in the trunk of her Fairlane. I'd love to switch to Comcast for their HDTV, but refuse to give up my DirecTivo(s).
I've heard size does't matter, wider is better, but this is a new one ;)
All other things being equal, smaller pixels are better. You can always increase your font size on a display with smaller pixels, but you can only fit so much content on a display with a limited number of them.
I'm looking forward to the day someone delivers a truely resolution independant interface, and I expect it will arrive on the Mac first. But for now, even many web pages choose to force font size on me. So no, I can't always increase font size.
Run the math, the 24" widescreen (16:10) is 12.7" vertically, the 20" is 12.0" (ballpark); they both push 1200 pixels vertically. So they pixel size is just about identical; but the widescreen has about 35% more screen area/20% more pixels. Perhaps the measure you really want is pixels per square inch.
14.1"(1400x1050): 15.4kppsi
15"(1400x1050): 13.6kppsi
2001FP: 10.0kppsi
2405FP: 8.9kppsi
17"(1280x1024): 9.5kppsi
19"(1280x1024): 7.5kppsi
So the pixel density is right in line with conventional other desktop panels, a little better than your 213t. I'm not sure about its pixels aren't even close to square, are you refering to trying to force 4x3 images onto a 16x10 screen? Games are the only thing I can see forcing this, and the Dell at least has a mode to handle that, just like widescreen TV's.
A good review of th dell panel is here
Good thing you Linux guys don't succomb to that "cult like following" stuff...
I think you missed the point. The VC's thought an IPO would fetch more money, so it was $200 million now or $400 million in 6 months. VC's invest in companies that have big growth potential, Founder's only accept money from VC's if they need more than they can raise via Freinds & Family and Bank loans.
If the VC thought $200 million was a good price for the company, they would have taken it.
I think thats his point. Prior to FedEx, you were happy for that twice weekly deliver. Now Nanook, your neighbor, is getting his mail 5 days a week and you're insanely jealous. If FedEx had never offered that service, there'd be no jealous, and everyone would rave about how those twice weekly postal deliveries rocks compared to the old monthly dog sled team.
Granted, its the stupidest thing in the world, declaring any non-universally accessible technology/service evil, but its Slashdot, what do you want?