Local governments do have some authority in this matter. They can and should tell WalMart that if they are going to use community services to subsidize their business model, then they will forego any tax breaks that businesses frequently get to locate in a certain area. WalMart should be free to provide employees no benefits and low wages if they are content paying full taxes, which will be used to fund additional social services. Something tells me WalMart would not be happy if a lot of communities did this and would start offering better benefits. This is all just a matter of citizens making it clear to their elected officials that they do not want to allow companies like this to have their cake and eat it too.
I'd say the chances of a store clerk typing in the wrong price for a couple of items in a large grocery order are greater than the chances of a pricing error with barcode scanners or RFID. That being said, stores that do not effectively deal with the problem of customers being charged the wrong price will see more customers heading to other stores where they are treated better. Therefore, they have an incentive to properly deal with the situation.
Remember, it is not WalMart that ultimately drives out the small businesses. It is the customers. They CHOOSE to shop at WalMart rather than the alternative options. And certain small businesses do hang on despite WalMart's presence. For example, a small crafts store with a large variety of quality merchandise and knowledgeable employees can provide a better experience than the WalMart crafts department. Many people will even pay higher prices to shop at a store like this since they get a better experience overall.
But Bush's interests also are on the side of defense contractors, who all use Linux extensively. TRW, for one, was a very early adopter of the Beowulf cluster. They will no doubt have their lobbyists counter the anti-open source advocates, and any defense contractor can spend more money on lobbyists than SCO is worth. So I wouldn't count on the SCO efforts getting very far. Besides, Bush got beat up on pretty badly after the steel tariffs, even by fellow Republicans, so the last thing he needs right now, before an election, is to be seen as protectionist.
Yes, but, you're forgetting something. IBM has a much larger public relations (lobbying) department than SCO, and many more years of experience. Then there is Red Hat, Novell and others who will also be countering SCO's lobbying efforts. Microsoft cannot be seen directly contributing to SCO's effort, or their intentions will become obvious right away and the entire effort would be ruined. This is not much to be worried about; its simply the last gasp for air of a dying company.
Lets see, the RIAA buys a law (the DMCA) that allows them to sidestep the normal judicial process to force ISPs to hand over customer information on the flimsiest evidence. ISPs are required, at great cost to them, to hand over hundreds of names a day to the recording industry. Customers get sued and probably drop their broadband connections in order to pay for the lawsuit settlements. Finally, this blatantly unconstitutional provision of the law gets overturned and the RIAA has to go back to playing fair and getting a warrant like everybody else. Now that its a lot harder for them to file suit, they are asking the ISPs to voluntarily cooperate with them in identifying copyright violators. Gee what a surprise, the ISPs are not willing to cooperate after several months of being legally strong-armed. This is the kind of thing that happens when you make enemies with just about everyone. You have nobody left who will help you willingly.
In future ISP contracts, make sure there is a clause stating that you can terminate the contract (maybe even have them pay you a penalty fee as well) if the ISP allows spam to be sent from their networks, causing an interruption in service for you. I would think you could find an ISP that would agree to these terms, considering ISPs are a dime a dozen these days and there are some out there that really do not allow spam. Even if you have to pay a little more, it would be worth it to ensure that you don't get your emails blocked because of some spammer.
Hell, it would be better to say that you were in jail for 7 years than to tell a tech-savvy company that you worked for SCO during that time. At least the time spent in jail may not have been totally your fault.
Since they're paying them in stock, and filing the lawsuit will boost the stock price (already up in after hours trading), the more valuable stock will cover all the legal and filing fees, and there may even be money left over to file more suits. Rinse, lather, repeat. Don't you just love how this pyramid scheme is set up? With every suit filed, more dumbasses buy the stock, generating money for more suits. Before its done, they will have come up with some reason to sue everyone in the United States, and maybe the rest of the world too. Not that they will expect to win, but at least the share price will stay up long enough for Darl's options to vest.
This sounds like the most likely scenario to me too. Fortunately, I think the judge in the IBM case will be too smart to buy it. Judges don't like it when you file a case and don't know what you own, but are clearly on a fishing expedition.
I hope you have also posted this comment in the Yahoo Finance SCOX message board. Its very telling for anyone who might be thinking about buying some SCO shares. Also, you could get some great responses from some of those "Strong Buy" trolls.
Novell SHOULD file a counter suit and they probably have grounds to do so. But with them being such wimps, they probably won't. Last year when they tried to claim that SCO had assigned all Unix copyrights to them, they were slapped silly by revelations that there was an addendum to the purchase contract and in fact they did not have these rights. They ducked away with their tail between their legs. Its time for Novell as a company to decide to either fight SCO full force, or just cower in the corner and beg the bad man to stop. Seeing as the future of their company depends on their Linux offerings, they had better choose wisely.
The real worry should not be about the SCO case, since they clearly do not have one, but about future cases. What if somebody comes forward with an infringement claim that they can actually prove? They would have to be able to show that their code had been placed into Linux without proper authorization. Linux distributors could remove it and issue a patch for customers to apply and this should get the users off the hook, but who would then be at fault for the past infringement? I assume the only person that could be held liable here would be whoever inserted the code, but I could be wrong. If this remains an unresolved issue, a lot of corporate types will still be nervous about using Linux.
Under an arrangement like this, the party being sued would have Red Hat to pay their expenses, which would be a lot more appealing than shelling out for lawyers on their own for a baseless lawsuit. Red Hat is clearly not worrying about actually losing one of these cases since they know what SCO's chances are.
The moral of this story, if you are going to complain, do it very clearly and to the point. That way, there can be no misinterpretation. Either that, or keep your mouth shut so nobody can blame you for anything.
I think what the grandparent poster was trying to say is that some companies think about IT the same way they think about their janitorial service. A cost center, which should be minimized as much as possible. While a janitorial service is necessary, it can't do much to offer a company a competitive advantage. IT can, when its done correctly. If the in house IT department can show that they are saving the company money and providing better service than outsourcing companies, management will be much more inclined to keep what they have rather than take a chance on that cut-rate vendor in Bangalore.
Hey, that doesn't bother me a bit. No website is so important that I will put up with that sort of crap to see it. I'll just move right along, and something tells me I won't be the only one with this opinion. When these sites die out because people just aren't coming to them anymore, we can have one big Internet funeral for them.
Its interesting how many people have pointed out that cable TV used to be commercial free. So why are we now paying to receive ads on cable? This should give you some insight. Basically everyone in the United States who subscribes to cable or satellite is paying a Disney Tax, mainly due to fees for ESPN. That's right, when you watch ESPN, you are bombarded with commercials, you see onscreen advertising, and on top of it your cable companies are charged out the ass for the rights to carry ESPN. But should they decide to drop ESPN or move it to a premium package, Disney will threaten to pull ALL of their channels from that cable company. This means no Disney, ESPN, ABC, and whatever other channels they own. The cable provider would lose lots of subscribers over this, so they must play along. But why does Disney feel that consumers should be forced to pay to watch ads? Because they clearly are willing to do so. Sports fans who pay almost $100 per game ticket and then $12 for a beer and slice of pizza, and then watch ads all through the game are more than willing to pay whatever they are charged for ESPN. What is unfair is the fact that every cable subscriber must pay whether they watch sports or not. The summary of this post is: Fuck ESPN. Fuck them in the ass with a concrete dildo.
I'm sure this new advertising 'technology' is covered by one or more of the most vaguely worded software patents. Once companies start getting sued for infringement, which will be around the same time they notice the sharp drop in visitors, they will pull the plug on these ads. And if this means that Microsoft takes down msn.com since it produces no revenue, somehow I think the Internet will live on without it.
Most of these situations don't bother me all that much. If the ad is nonobtrusive and does not impact my activities at all, I don't care. The alternative to staring at an ad above the toilet is staring at the blank wall. There is the issue of visual pollution with billboards, but most communities control how many there can be in a given area. If some sports team wants to pollute the inside of their stadium, that's their business. On a side note, I rarely go to professional sports games at all, and the idea of paying to be bombarded with ads makes them even less appealling. But, they've got to pay Kobe Bryant's salary somehow and the $6 cups of beer must not be enough.
Making the move to a portal site will hurt Google a lot more than it will help them. There are plenty of portals already; they are a dime a dozen. Who the hell needs another one? Google will spend lots of time and money on this venture which could otherwise be used to improve their search capabilities. Getting rid of the page rank spammers should be their priority, not expanding into a commodity marketplace where they will have no real niche. Worse yet, once they sink a lot of money into the portal, the company will be hard up for more revenue, and being a public corporation they will have to rake it in any way they can. That means annoying advertising and paid services. In other words, Google as we know it will come to an end. I really really hope this doesn't happen, but they appear to be headed in this direction.
Considering all of the websites mentioned in the parent post are worthless, with or without the ads, I can't say this bothers me. If it spreads to damn near every website, like popups have, I will consider even more aggressive ad blocking software, even if I have to pay for it. Something tells me even the average sheep who don't realize that MSN does not have to be their start page will finally snap if they are forced to view TV-like commercials every time they get online. Look for the MSN subscriber base to reduce even faster than it already is.
Companies which serve pop-ups, such as Doubleclick, don't give a crap what people think of the ads for one simple reason: they are paid per page load. If they can get an ad to appear on someone's screen, they get a few cents, whether the user closes it, clicks it, hates the product being advertised, whatever. This is why they don't care if they annoy potential customers. They are only making money when the ads are displayed, and have no real interest in getting people to buy the junk they are pushing.
Slashdot Mirror
Local governments do have some authority in this matter. They can and should tell WalMart that if they are going to use community services to subsidize their business model, then they will forego any tax breaks that businesses frequently get to locate in a certain area. WalMart should be free to provide employees no benefits and low wages if they are content paying full taxes, which will be used to fund additional social services. Something tells me WalMart would not be happy if a lot of communities did this and would start offering better benefits. This is all just a matter of citizens making it clear to their elected officials that they do not want to allow companies like this to have their cake and eat it too.
I'd say the chances of a store clerk typing in the wrong price for a couple of items in a large grocery order are greater than the chances of a pricing error with barcode scanners or RFID. That being said, stores that do not effectively deal with the problem of customers being charged the wrong price will see more customers heading to other stores where they are treated better. Therefore, they have an incentive to properly deal with the situation.
Remember, it is not WalMart that ultimately drives out the small businesses. It is the customers. They CHOOSE to shop at WalMart rather than the alternative options. And certain small businesses do hang on despite WalMart's presence. For example, a small crafts store with a large variety of quality merchandise and knowledgeable employees can provide a better experience than the WalMart crafts department. Many people will even pay higher prices to shop at a store like this since they get a better experience overall.
Perhaps they use Linux.
But Bush's interests also are on the side of defense contractors, who all use Linux extensively. TRW, for one, was a very early adopter of the Beowulf cluster. They will no doubt have their lobbyists counter the anti-open source advocates, and any defense contractor can spend more money on lobbyists than SCO is worth. So I wouldn't count on the SCO efforts getting very far. Besides, Bush got beat up on pretty badly after the steel tariffs, even by fellow Republicans, so the last thing he needs right now, before an election, is to be seen as protectionist.
Yes, but, you're forgetting something. IBM has a much larger public relations (lobbying) department than SCO, and many more years of experience. Then there is Red Hat, Novell and others who will also be countering SCO's lobbying efforts. Microsoft cannot be seen directly contributing to SCO's effort, or their intentions will become obvious right away and the entire effort would be ruined. This is not much to be worried about; its simply the last gasp for air of a dying company.
Lets see, the RIAA buys a law (the DMCA) that allows them to sidestep the normal judicial process to force ISPs to hand over customer information on the flimsiest evidence. ISPs are required, at great cost to them, to hand over hundreds of names a day to the recording industry. Customers get sued and probably drop their broadband connections in order to pay for the lawsuit settlements. Finally, this blatantly unconstitutional provision of the law gets overturned and the RIAA has to go back to playing fair and getting a warrant like everybody else. Now that its a lot harder for them to file suit, they are asking the ISPs to voluntarily cooperate with them in identifying copyright violators. Gee what a surprise, the ISPs are not willing to cooperate after several months of being legally strong-armed. This is the kind of thing that happens when you make enemies with just about everyone. You have nobody left who will help you willingly.
In future ISP contracts, make sure there is a clause stating that you can terminate the contract (maybe even have them pay you a penalty fee as well) if the ISP allows spam to be sent from their networks, causing an interruption in service for you. I would think you could find an ISP that would agree to these terms, considering ISPs are a dime a dozen these days and there are some out there that really do not allow spam. Even if you have to pay a little more, it would be worth it to ensure that you don't get your emails blocked because of some spammer.
Hell, it would be better to say that you were in jail for 7 years than to tell a tech-savvy company that you worked for SCO during that time. At least the time spent in jail may not have been totally your fault.
Since they're paying them in stock, and filing the lawsuit will boost the stock price (already up in after hours trading), the more valuable stock will cover all the legal and filing fees, and there may even be money left over to file more suits. Rinse, lather, repeat. Don't you just love how this pyramid scheme is set up? With every suit filed, more dumbasses buy the stock, generating money for more suits. Before its done, they will have come up with some reason to sue everyone in the United States, and maybe the rest of the world too. Not that they will expect to win, but at least the share price will stay up long enough for Darl's options to vest.
This sounds like the most likely scenario to me too. Fortunately, I think the judge in the IBM case will be too smart to buy it. Judges don't like it when you file a case and don't know what you own, but are clearly on a fishing expedition.
I hope you have also posted this comment in the Yahoo Finance SCOX message board. Its very telling for anyone who might be thinking about buying some SCO shares. Also, you could get some great responses from some of those "Strong Buy" trolls.
Novell SHOULD file a counter suit and they probably have grounds to do so. But with them being such wimps, they probably won't. Last year when they tried to claim that SCO had assigned all Unix copyrights to them, they were slapped silly by revelations that there was an addendum to the purchase contract and in fact they did not have these rights. They ducked away with their tail between their legs. Its time for Novell as a company to decide to either fight SCO full force, or just cower in the corner and beg the bad man to stop. Seeing as the future of their company depends on their Linux offerings, they had better choose wisely.
The real worry should not be about the SCO case, since they clearly do not have one, but about future cases. What if somebody comes forward with an infringement claim that they can actually prove? They would have to be able to show that their code had been placed into Linux without proper authorization. Linux distributors could remove it and issue a patch for customers to apply and this should get the users off the hook, but who would then be at fault for the past infringement? I assume the only person that could be held liable here would be whoever inserted the code, but I could be wrong. If this remains an unresolved issue, a lot of corporate types will still be nervous about using Linux.
Under an arrangement like this, the party being sued would have Red Hat to pay their expenses, which would be a lot more appealing than shelling out for lawyers on their own for a baseless lawsuit. Red Hat is clearly not worrying about actually losing one of these cases since they know what SCO's chances are.
The moral of this story, if you are going to complain, do it very clearly and to the point. That way, there can be no misinterpretation. Either that, or keep your mouth shut so nobody can blame you for anything.
I think what the grandparent poster was trying to say is that some companies think about IT the same way they think about their janitorial service. A cost center, which should be minimized as much as possible. While a janitorial service is necessary, it can't do much to offer a company a competitive advantage. IT can, when its done correctly. If the in house IT department can show that they are saving the company money and providing better service than outsourcing companies, management will be much more inclined to keep what they have rather than take a chance on that cut-rate vendor in Bangalore.
Hey, that doesn't bother me a bit. No website is so important that I will put up with that sort of crap to see it. I'll just move right along, and something tells me I won't be the only one with this opinion. When these sites die out because people just aren't coming to them anymore, we can have one big Internet funeral for them.
Its interesting how many people have pointed out that cable TV used to be commercial free. So why are we now paying to receive ads on cable? This should give you some insight. Basically everyone in the United States who subscribes to cable or satellite is paying a Disney Tax, mainly due to fees for ESPN. That's right, when you watch ESPN, you are bombarded with commercials, you see onscreen advertising, and on top of it your cable companies are charged out the ass for the rights to carry ESPN. But should they decide to drop ESPN or move it to a premium package, Disney will threaten to pull ALL of their channels from that cable company. This means no Disney, ESPN, ABC, and whatever other channels they own. The cable provider would lose lots of subscribers over this, so they must play along. But why does Disney feel that consumers should be forced to pay to watch ads? Because they clearly are willing to do so. Sports fans who pay almost $100 per game ticket and then $12 for a beer and slice of pizza, and then watch ads all through the game are more than willing to pay whatever they are charged for ESPN. What is unfair is the fact that every cable subscriber must pay whether they watch sports or not. The summary of this post is: Fuck ESPN. Fuck them in the ass with a concrete dildo.
I'm sure this new advertising 'technology' is covered by one or more of the most vaguely worded software patents. Once companies start getting sued for infringement, which will be around the same time they notice the sharp drop in visitors, they will pull the plug on these ads. And if this means that Microsoft takes down msn.com since it produces no revenue, somehow I think the Internet will live on without it.
Most of these situations don't bother me all that much. If the ad is nonobtrusive and does not impact my activities at all, I don't care. The alternative to staring at an ad above the toilet is staring at the blank wall. There is the issue of visual pollution with billboards, but most communities control how many there can be in a given area. If some sports team wants to pollute the inside of their stadium, that's their business. On a side note, I rarely go to professional sports games at all, and the idea of paying to be bombarded with ads makes them even less appealling. But, they've got to pay Kobe Bryant's salary somehow and the $6 cups of beer must not be enough.
Making the move to a portal site will hurt Google a lot more than it will help them. There are plenty of portals already; they are a dime a dozen. Who the hell needs another one? Google will spend lots of time and money on this venture which could otherwise be used to improve their search capabilities. Getting rid of the page rank spammers should be their priority, not expanding into a commodity marketplace where they will have no real niche. Worse yet, once they sink a lot of money into the portal, the company will be hard up for more revenue, and being a public corporation they will have to rake it in any way they can. That means annoying advertising and paid services. In other words, Google as we know it will come to an end. I really really hope this doesn't happen, but they appear to be headed in this direction.
Considering all of the websites mentioned in the parent post are worthless, with or without the ads, I can't say this bothers me. If it spreads to damn near every website, like popups have, I will consider even more aggressive ad blocking software, even if I have to pay for it. Something tells me even the average sheep who don't realize that MSN does not have to be their start page will finally snap if they are forced to view TV-like commercials every time they get online. Look for the MSN subscriber base to reduce even faster than it already is.
Companies which serve pop-ups, such as Doubleclick, don't give a crap what people think of the ads for one simple reason: they are paid per page load. If they can get an ad to appear on someone's screen, they get a few cents, whether the user closes it, clicks it, hates the product being advertised, whatever. This is why they don't care if they annoy potential customers. They are only making money when the ads are displayed, and have no real interest in getting people to buy the junk they are pushing.
Use www.weather.gov instead, if you are in the United States. The same forecast, direct from the National Weather Service, without ads.