What do those websites have ANYTHING to do with not paying your investors early on? You can make all sorts of allegations about accounting fraud - that's for the bean counters to figure out - but I'd be awfully suprised if any publicly traded company has included a clause providing a timeframe for ROI in their shareholder's certificates, much less Microsoft.
It seems that Gates has doubled the amount of the donation to $1.5 billion.
Here's a NYT link (yes, I know, registration...):
Gates Charity is Doubling Vaccination Gift
Even if you want to accuse him of pumping his pharma portfolio (which is hard to believe since he's suggesting that pharma's cut their profit which has the opposite effect), he's also heavily pumping the portfolio of his charitable foundation.
Yeah like Robert Half doesn't have an incentive to post a less-than-rosy outlook so that their candidates will accept whatever will keep their clients happy? I don't trust them one bit.
To be fair, they don't entirely rip off investors. The extra stock issuance ends up showing up on the companies per share data. Of course, you can argue that a lot of times, people aren't looking for the per share number - they are expecting a company to pull in a certain amount of revenue or profit, ignoring the new issuance that is being used as comp.
Anyway, in some senses, employees may be better off. Eventually, companies will have to compensate you or risk losing you to a competitor. If they compensate you in cash or stock awards, all the better. I'd rather be able to diversify my portfolio rather than have it all tied up in one company whose honesty and management I can't necesarily gauge. All it takes is one accounting scandal to wipe out your personal profits.
Why not just bounce all email for n days but deliver it as well. So you'll have to tolerate the spam and the recievers will have to tolerate the bounces, but the bounce message could include a line saying that it has actually been delivered. That way you avoid shutting down but get the same effects.
I think a lot of blind people would prefer being forced to wear a funny helmet and be able to see to being blind. Sounds like a great deal, especially since it doesn't seem to require any sort of exotic surgery.
I could be mistaken, but I think that you're implying that employees have some right and expectation of privacy when using computers that aren't theirs. But when you're at work, using a work computer on a work network, none of it is really yours so you can't expect it to be private. Hell my company explictly tells us that our managers get a random sample of our email to read every week. I doubt my manager actually bothers to read it since he's trusting and it's boring, but I keep in mind that at any point he might choose to read it and I'd hate for it to be anything juicy!
I like MySQL as a concept, but my understanding is that it's missing a lot of the pieces that one would need from an enterprise DB. My understanding is that it's missing things like stored procedures, DB server clustering and transactional support. Am I mistaken? If I'm not, I don't see how most enterprises would be willing to switch over to MySQL even though the price sure is right....
I'm not commenting on whether we ought to take things on faith or not. I'm commenting on the system used in this particular study. They did a linear regression using several indepedent variables. So their dependent variable results, the vote breakdown, is very much dependent on their choice of variables and the likelihood that a linear regression approximates reality. If you look at county results in a state, especially one like Flordai, you'll notice vastly different results in different counties. Averaging out these results does not approximate reality at all. In fact, all it does is skew your results.
By pointing out that they used data from 1996, I'm not saying that the data is particularly old; what I am saying is that's it's invalid. Neither of the two candidates were running in 1996. I'm saying that it's not good enough to say to look at old election results and expect the same outcome in a new elections. If that were the case, then the democrats would never have lost their voting stronghold in the south.
They didn't remove the effects of those factors. Where do you see that in their paper? They made them independent variables, but that doesn't remove their affects. The dependent variable in a linear regression is linearly dependent on the independent variables. So they did exactly the opposite. They based their regression on the factors you listed above.
In fact, I see that their regression wasn't particularly good when you look at the low end of their estimate democratic support with electronic voting. On the high end, the regression also deviates.
Here's a problem with their numbers - they are making sweeping assumptions about age, income, ethnic makeup, and voting history, in 1996 no less, to do a linear regression on OTHER counties and apply them to those counties. If those sorts of analysis were accurate, there would be no need for elections. We could just base our choice of leader on a census.
They did an OLS regression based on people's past history from 2000 and *1996*, when neither candidate was running and expected that to model reality? Did they bother to factor in the voting preferences of all of the people who didn't vote in EITHER of those two elections? And they based it off of their ethnic and economic make up, because, surely that's a perfect prediction of people's voting preferences. Hell, why bother to have an election? Why don't we just analyze the ethnic and economic makeup of the US and just pick the right candidate? Surely people don't change their minds and our inferences are perfect.
It has nothing to do with people stealing and/or getting stuff. It has to do with the onus open the copyright owner to protect their copyright. That doesn't mean that they get free-reign to join whatever they want to join and sniff whatever they want to sniff. We have laws in the US to protect us from exactly that.
Besides, if they want to research "secure" file sharing, then they'd be better off doing it on Internet1 since that's where their customers are. Or are you expecting universities to subscribe?
Most major software programs are developed by a small core development team with a lot of other developers adding the fluff. Doing it solo might be tough but it's not impossible if you have a novel idea. If you're trying to compete with a big software company in a space in which they already have a well accepted program, you're going to have a tough time doing it. However, if you have an original idea, you shouldn't have a ton of problems. You don't have to worry about the number of patents being granted, but you do have to worry about the number of defensible patents being granted. If your idea is novel enough, you shouldn't have too many problems. Besides, the big guys know there's a lot of money in buying your product and marketing it. More than there is in taking down a small company with very few assets.
If you read through the article, it sounds like his real problem isn't that he's doing tech work and can't find any - it's that he has really bad credit at this point, child support payments from a previous relationship, a lease on a car on unfavorable terms, previous debt from health care costs, and is paying a lot for his living expenses. He's making $30/hour right now which, though it's without benefits, is not a bad salary in the midwest. By normal estimates, that's a $60k/year salary which is more than he was making before.
I don't think that people are disagreeing about how long your in the school. It's the courses taken. By the definition used by most Universities, this wouldn't be a computer science degree. It would be a degree in programming.
Slashdot Mirror
What do those websites have ANYTHING to do with not paying your investors early on? You can make all sorts of allegations about accounting fraud - that's for the bean counters to figure out - but I'd be awfully suprised if any publicly traded company has included a clause providing a timeframe for ROI in their shareholder's certificates, much less Microsoft.
It seems that Gates has doubled the amount of the donation to $1.5 billion. Here's a NYT link (yes, I know, registration...): Gates Charity is Doubling Vaccination Gift
Even if you want to accuse him of pumping his pharma portfolio (which is hard to believe since he's suggesting that pharma's cut their profit which has the opposite effect), he's also heavily pumping the portfolio of his charitable foundation.
Bill Gates is worth so much because he defrauded his stockholders in not paying proper returns on investment early on.
That's a pretty serious allegation. Care to back it up? I've never seen a shareholder certificate with a "proper returns" clause in it.
Yeah like Robert Half doesn't have an incentive to post a less-than-rosy outlook so that their candidates will accept whatever will keep their clients happy? I don't trust them one bit.
To be fair, they don't entirely rip off investors. The extra stock issuance ends up showing up on the companies per share data. Of course, you can argue that a lot of times, people aren't looking for the per share number - they are expecting a company to pull in a certain amount of revenue or profit, ignoring the new issuance that is being used as comp.
Anyway, in some senses, employees may be better off. Eventually, companies will have to compensate you or risk losing you to a competitor. If they compensate you in cash or stock awards, all the better. I'd rather be able to diversify my portfolio rather than have it all tied up in one company whose honesty and management I can't necesarily gauge. All it takes is one accounting scandal to wipe out your personal profits.
I'm running an x800 XT right now. I'm not sure why it's being considered vaporware. I got it in late September.
Why do we even entertain these kinds of diatribes? He's obviously incredibly one-sided with a good financial reason to be so. Screw him.
Why not just bounce all email for n days but deliver it as well. So you'll have to tolerate the spam and the recievers will have to tolerate the bounces, but the bounce message could include a line saying that it has actually been delivered. That way you avoid shutting down but get the same effects.
I think a lot of blind people would prefer being forced to wear a funny helmet and be able to see to being blind. Sounds like a great deal, especially since it doesn't seem to require any sort of exotic surgery.
I could be mistaken, but I think that you're implying that employees have some right and expectation of privacy when using computers that aren't theirs. But when you're at work, using a work computer on a work network, none of it is really yours so you can't expect it to be private. Hell my company explictly tells us that our managers get a random sample of our email to read every week. I doubt my manager actually bothers to read it since he's trusting and it's boring, but I keep in mind that at any point he might choose to read it and I'd hate for it to be anything juicy!
That's some good advice, that you just didn't take. But who would have thought it figures?
I like MySQL as a concept, but my understanding is that it's missing a lot of the pieces that one would need from an enterprise DB. My understanding is that it's missing things like stored procedures, DB server clustering and transactional support. Am I mistaken? If I'm not, I don't see how most enterprises would be willing to switch over to MySQL even though the price sure is right....
You're the idiot. Do a quick google on linear regressions and you'll do the world some good.
I'm not commenting on whether we ought to take things on faith or not. I'm commenting on the system used in this particular study. They did a linear regression using several indepedent variables. So their dependent variable results, the vote breakdown, is very much dependent on their choice of variables and the likelihood that a linear regression approximates reality. If you look at county results in a state, especially one like Flordai, you'll notice vastly different results in different counties. Averaging out these results does not approximate reality at all. In fact, all it does is skew your results. By pointing out that they used data from 1996, I'm not saying that the data is particularly old; what I am saying is that's it's invalid. Neither of the two candidates were running in 1996. I'm saying that it's not good enough to say to look at old election results and expect the same outcome in a new elections. If that were the case, then the democrats would never have lost their voting stronghold in the south.
They didn't remove the effects of those factors. Where do you see that in their paper? They made them independent variables, but that doesn't remove their affects. The dependent variable in a linear regression is linearly dependent on the independent variables. So they did exactly the opposite. They based their regression on the factors you listed above. In fact, I see that their regression wasn't particularly good when you look at the low end of their estimate democratic support with electronic voting. On the high end, the regression also deviates.
Here's a problem with their numbers - they are making sweeping assumptions about age, income, ethnic makeup, and voting history, in 1996 no less, to do a linear regression on OTHER counties and apply them to those counties. If those sorts of analysis were accurate, there would be no need for elections. We could just base our choice of leader on a census.
They did an OLS regression based on people's past history from 2000 and *1996*, when neither candidate was running and expected that to model reality? Did they bother to factor in the voting preferences of all of the people who didn't vote in EITHER of those two elections? And they based it off of their ethnic and economic make up, because, surely that's a perfect prediction of people's voting preferences. Hell, why bother to have an election? Why don't we just analyze the ethnic and economic makeup of the US and just pick the right candidate? Surely people don't change their minds and our inferences are perfect.
Whatever happened to girls without curfews? :P
No, I don't trust you. The universities put their own money into research as well as using grant money. I dare you to prove otherwise.
It has nothing to do with people stealing and/or getting stuff. It has to do with the onus open the copyright owner to protect their copyright. That doesn't mean that they get free-reign to join whatever they want to join and sniff whatever they want to sniff. We have laws in the US to protect us from exactly that. Besides, if they want to research "secure" file sharing, then they'd be better off doing it on Internet1 since that's where their customers are. Or are you expecting universities to subscribe?
Most major software programs are developed by a small core development team with a lot of other developers adding the fluff. Doing it solo might be tough but it's not impossible if you have a novel idea. If you're trying to compete with a big software company in a space in which they already have a well accepted program, you're going to have a tough time doing it. However, if you have an original idea, you shouldn't have a ton of problems. You don't have to worry about the number of patents being granted, but you do have to worry about the number of defensible patents being granted. If your idea is novel enough, you shouldn't have too many problems. Besides, the big guys know there's a lot of money in buying your product and marketing it. More than there is in taking down a small company with very few assets.
If you read through the article, it sounds like his real problem isn't that he's doing tech work and can't find any - it's that he has really bad credit at this point, child support payments from a previous relationship, a lease on a car on unfavorable terms, previous debt from health care costs, and is paying a lot for his living expenses. He's making $30/hour right now which, though it's without benefits, is not a bad salary in the midwest. By normal estimates, that's a $60k/year salary which is more than he was making before.
But where are the "Science" classes? It's a science degree after all. Most of those classes look like trade school classes.
I don't think that people are disagreeing about how long your in the school. It's the courses taken. By the definition used by most Universities, this wouldn't be a computer science degree. It would be a degree in programming.