But what's finally good news for the company is that the Surface gross margin was positive this quarter, which means the company finally starts making money on Surface sales.
I think that someone doesn't understand accounting very well. Thre are all kinds of real costs that don't get factored into the gross, so this report does not show whether or not Microsoft is actually making money on Surface sales. For example, all that advertising cost.
As a sysadmin, you should know that it is easy and cheap to rent a VPS (Virtual Private Server). Then, run squid on the server, or do some fancy routing to send all your web traffic out via a VPN to your VPS. Since most VPS services offer a minimum of 1TB of monthy data, there should not be any excess data usage charges.
If this issue were put to an actual vote, I have zero doubt that it would win by a landslide. I have yet to meet a single tech-savvy person that supports paid prioritization, even among conservatives.
There is a word or phrase for that, but I don't recall it now.
The problem is that most of the people you interact with are tech-savvy. You have an impression of how people would vote, but, in reality it is how a tiny slice of the population (tech-savvy people) would vote.
It's not clear to me that it was willful avoidance of paying minimum wage - they had a job to do, they got help from some of their existing employees from overseas, who continued to receive their regular wage (in their regular currency) during the time that they were here
It's almost certainly a violation of immigration law. I assume that these people came to Fremont on visitor visas that don't allow the visa holder to "work". Even if the foreign workers were here on H1s or L1s (which I doubt), they would have been violating the salary requirements for that type of visa.
That's a joke. They should have been fined at least as much as the backwages were.
And no more visas of any kind for this company. No H1s, no L1s, no B1/B2s, etc..
In this case, the company appears to have been misusing B1/B2 visas (visitors).
Is it? If the economy were to grow by 5%, but all of that extra money then went to a tiny slice of the population (less that 0.1%), does that growth really matter?
If the vast majority of a society gets poorer, while a tiny, tiny slice of the population gets vastly richer, has that society improved?
Take a look at Samsung's sales figures and profits. They're both tanking. I'm not saying that's a result of the iPhone 6 though, they'd already started doing that before the iPhone 6 launch.
For the most part, Samsung doesn't really compete with Apple, Samsung competes with the many other manufacturers of Android phones. It's only in the flagship products (Galaxy, Note) where there is competition with Apple, but I don't think that these represent the bulk of Samsung's sales outside the USA.
Apple hasn't really innovated much since Steve left the scene.
And for a long time before Steve left the scene. Apple has been a success by letting other companies release new types of devices and then execute their own version of that type of device. Apple did not create the first portable music player, the first smartphone, the first WIMP interface, etc.. Apple's success has largely been down to executing arguably better versions of devices that already exist in the marketplace. Now, Apple is also benefitting from being perceived as a luxury brand.
Here in New Jersey, we deregulated the energy industry 15 years ago. There are indeed many companies offering to sell electricity to me.
I think that you will find that the infrastructure owner is still regulated and required to cooperate with the generators of electricity (who are deregulated).
The situation that you have is very similar to what many people on/. have called for: companies can own and operate the local loops or provide Internet access (using the local loops), but not both. Alternatively the local loop owners should provide access to the local loops to competitive ISPs, who would ocmpete with the local loop operator to provide cable TV and Internet. This did happen briefly in parts of the USA, but the large cable companies were able to make the system break down.
That is how free markets work. When there is good competition, you have the highest available quality, and the lowest cost, the market will bear.
If you think that there is anything like a free market in providing TV and Internet to consumers, then I have a bridge to sell you. Other countries have forced the owners of the local loops to offer (at near cost) access to alternative suppliers. This has resulted in competition and far lower prices than in the USA.
Cable companies have received both direct and indirect subsidies to build out their infrastructure. The chance of an alternative (other than another incumbent) to that is close to zero.
Why isn't there another company offering to sell electricity or gas to me?
He pointed out the defendant's legal budgets are essentially infinite, and they are more than willing to fight the case to the supreme court. Once you get there, a victory by the plaintiffs are not assured. Remember, these are the guys who handed down Citizen's United. Do you want a new TV now, or a very(!) small chance to get a new car 5-10 years from now? That's what it comes down to.
That's a very good arguement for why the lawyers don't want to argue this further. Not so much for their clients. $5000 is not very much money for each person affected by this, but the millions that the lawyers will get is a lot of money. Furthermore, the lawyers may have to put in 10x the effort to get 10x in damages, which means 10x the fees. As a lawyer, would you:
1. Take the money now and find another lawsuit to work on, or
2. Put in 10x the effort, for the chance of getting 10x the rewards?
Obviously you choose the former.
for the clients, though, the question is rather different: Would you
1. Take a small amount of money now, or
2. Gamble on getting 10x the money, just by being prepared to wait for the money?
That's a very different equation.
National security letter shenanigans would mean that I wouldn't even have any management staff physically in the USA, there would be no staff in the USA to deliver a NSL to.
While NSA letters are bad, what make you think that the same (and worse) isn't already going on in most other countries?
Seriously - bring a package of cookies for the flight crew..... And it's not a job that's appreciated terribly much - look at the comments in this thread, just for starters - so it goes a long way.
Beyond being polite to the attendants, I don't see any need for any more. It may be a crappy job, but it was their choice to do that job. There are vastly more applicants for the job than people hired.
... and will probably sneak you a non-alcoholic treat at some point during the flight
"non-alcoholic": wow! Actually, politeness may get you an alcoholic drink, but probably only on long-haul flights when the attendants are bored.
These networks are owned by the ISPs. It seems to me that government, before it steps in and tells them how best to run their networks, should have the burden of showing how net neutrality is better for the network than prioritization schemes.
What you describe is exactly how it's supposed to work. If the government wants to control the hundreds of billions of dollars of network infrastructure that private companies have invested i
Except that those private companies have received 1. direct subsidies, 2. Free intellectual property usage (basic TCP/IP technologies) and 3. free usage of rights of way.
So, since we, the public, have heavily subsidised those privately owned networks, we should also have the right to regulate them. Finally, since the ISPs have been pushing for local monopoly status, they should accept that they are treated like a local monopoly (subject to regulation).
My personal "aha moment" came when I was talking to a policeman that I knew in a social setting. I mentioned an article that the local paper had published. In the article, the reporters described their experience of going around local police stations asking for information that the police were required to provide under state law. In a few cases, the reporters were given the information, but mostly the responses ranged from "no" to opening an investigation on the reporters.
To get to the point -- the response of the policeman, of whom I had no knowledge if he was personally involved in failing to provide the information, was to go from pleasant conversation to *very* frosty. Why? Once can speculate, but perhaps most likely is simply that he considered solidarity with his colleagues more important than the fact that the police were routinely breaking state law.
Slashdot Mirror
It's already happened -- just in a different fashion. What do you think the "no-fly list" is about?
I think that someone doesn't understand accounting very well. Thre are all kinds of real costs that don't get factored into the gross, so this report does not show whether or not Microsoft is actually making money on Surface sales. For example, all that advertising cost.
As a sysadmin, you should know that it is easy and cheap to rent a VPS (Virtual Private Server). Then, run squid on the server, or do some fancy routing to send all your web traffic out via a VPN to your VPS. Since most VPS services offer a minimum of 1TB of monthy data, there should not be any excess data usage charges.
There is a word or phrase for that, but I don't recall it now.
The problem is that most of the people you interact with are tech-savvy. You have an impression of how people would vote, but, in reality it is how a tiny slice of the population (tech-savvy people) would vote.
Yeah, the whole issue around H1's is misdirection. People should be looking at how L1s are being (mis)used.
It's almost certainly a violation of immigration law. I assume that these people came to Fremont on visitor visas that don't allow the visa holder to "work". Even if the foreign workers were here on H1s or L1s (which I doubt), they would have been violating the salary requirements for that type of visa.
And no more visas of any kind for this company. No H1s, no L1s, no B1/B2s, etc.. In this case, the company appears to have been misusing B1/B2 visas (visitors).
Is it? If the economy were to grow by 5%, but all of that extra money then went to a tiny slice of the population (less that 0.1%), does that growth really matter?
If the vast majority of a society gets poorer, while a tiny, tiny slice of the population gets vastly richer, has that society improved?
That just means that functionality has moved elsewhere. For example, the services that must be started before Postfix, the reload function, etc.
The Editor did edit the submission -- to add the flame-bait!
For the most part, Samsung doesn't really compete with Apple, Samsung competes with the many other manufacturers of Android phones. It's only in the flagship products (Galaxy, Note) where there is competition with Apple, but I don't think that these represent the bulk of Samsung's sales outside the USA.
And for a long time before Steve left the scene. Apple has been a success by letting other companies release new types of devices and then execute their own version of that type of device. Apple did not create the first portable music player, the first smartphone, the first WIMP interface, etc.. Apple's success has largely been down to executing arguably better versions of devices that already exist in the marketplace. Now, Apple is also benefitting from being perceived as a luxury brand.
I think that you will find that the infrastructure owner is still regulated and required to cooperate with the generators of electricity (who are deregulated).
/. have called for: companies can own and operate the local loops or provide Internet access (using the local loops), but not both. Alternatively the local loop owners should provide access to the local loops to competitive ISPs, who would ocmpete with the local loop operator to provide cable TV and Internet. This did happen briefly in parts of the USA, but the large cable companies were able to make the system break down.
The situation that you have is very similar to what many people on
If you think that there is anything like a free market in providing TV and Internet to consumers, then I have a bridge to sell you. Other countries have forced the owners of the local loops to offer (at near cost) access to alternative suppliers. This has resulted in competition and far lower prices than in the USA.
Cable companies have received both direct and indirect subsidies to build out their infrastructure. The chance of an alternative (other than another incumbent) to that is close to zero.
Why isn't there another company offering to sell electricity or gas to me?
That's a very good arguement for why the lawyers don't want to argue this further. Not so much for their clients. $5000 is not very much money for each person affected by this, but the millions that the lawyers will get is a lot of money. Furthermore, the lawyers may have to put in 10x the effort to get 10x in damages, which means 10x the fees. As a lawyer, would you:
1. Take the money now and find another lawsuit to work on, or
2. Put in 10x the effort, for the chance of getting 10x the rewards?
Obviously you choose the former.
for the clients, though, the question is rather different: Would you
1. Take a small amount of money now, or
2. Gamble on getting 10x the money, just by being prepared to wait for the money?
That's a very different equation.
While NSA letters are bad, what make you think that the same (and worse) isn't already going on in most other countries?
Beyond being polite to the attendants, I don't see any need for any more. It may be a crappy job, but it was their choice to do that job. There are vastly more applicants for the job than people hired.
"non-alcoholic": wow! Actually, politeness may get you an alcoholic drink, but probably only on long-haul flights when the attendants are bored.
Obviously she had been watching Peaky Blinders.
Or companies, which have most if not all of the rights of natural persons (except for the right to vote), and few of the responsibilities.
Except that those private companies have received 1. direct subsidies, 2. Free intellectual property usage (basic TCP/IP technologies) and 3. free usage of rights of way.
So, since we, the public, have heavily subsidised those privately owned networks, we should also have the right to regulate them. Finally, since the ISPs have been pushing for local monopoly status, they should accept that they are treated like a local monopoly (subject to regulation).
Oh, really?
"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,"
Nixon, 1977.
My personal "aha moment" came when I was talking to a policeman that I knew in a social setting. I mentioned an article that the local paper had published. In the article, the reporters described their experience of going around local police stations asking for information that the police were required to provide under state law. In a few cases, the reporters were given the information, but mostly the responses ranged from "no" to opening an investigation on the reporters.
To get to the point -- the response of the policeman, of whom I had no knowledge if he was personally involved in failing to provide the information, was to go from pleasant conversation to *very* frosty. Why? Once can speculate, but perhaps most likely is simply that he considered solidarity with his colleagues more important than the fact that the police were routinely breaking state law.
I thought that it had more to do with 2 factors: 1. Its composition (mostly ice) and 2: Its highly eccentric orbit.
There is a name for bodies which are mostly ice and have very eccentric orbits: "asteroid".
If anyone ever wanted an example of why LEO agencies cannot be trusted, this is it.