Really? You can send anyone of your chossing a bill and then sue them just 'cause they didn't pay? How do you know you're even sending it to the proper accounts payable department?
Yes you can sue anyone for not paying a bill. In court they can just argue they're not the right person. That is why we have small claims court, to facilitate small claims cheaply and easily for all 3 parties. (You, them and the gov)
Quarter on quarter growth of 50%, for 2 quarters after a new product. I don't think that will continue for a year or so, you're suggesting 500% in the next year (1.5^4)
Linux use is growing, but that isn't all Redhat, and that isn't all Advance server either.
I think there will be growth, lots in subscriptions and valuable service, but I don't see Redhat growing profit by 100x in the next few years.
I do think that they are doing better, and will probaly be somewhat successful, just not what hteir market cap suggests.
People don't buy quality, they tend to buy the cheapest they can get away with. The Pioneer project wasn't cheap, they got what they paid for.
Computers I don't care, they're so cheap, and advancing so quickly I only need it to last 2-3 years. I would like my hard drive to last a bit longer, but the rest who cares.
They need to VASTY increase their sales to justify their market cap But even if any sales generate 100% profit, they need to double their sales to justify their market cap.
Redhat has 170 million shares outstanding. A Market capitalization of 1 billion dollars. $300k isn't going to cut it. (annually, quarterly, monthly or even weekly.)
Daily earnings of $300k would be decent.
1% profit on their sales is a little slim.
They've still got a way to go to justify their price
You can use the old kernel, you can use the new kernel, you can use your own kernel. Everyone can make whatever they want.
Untrue. Most people are incapable of hacking kernel code, or any kind of code.
You can learn, you can hire someone, a group can get together and hire someone. A company could be formed to service that need.
Blackmail the user base? With free software they can't force you to move, the software doesn't self destruct. If you don't like it, go to BeOS or wherever.
For some technical correctness is a primary goal, in Linux this means that sometimes features and interfaces change.
This may tend to piss of some, but you end up with a technically superior product.
For others consistency of interfaces may be most important and technical correctness is secondary. This tends to generate lots of legacy crap, we see this in MS Windows. Now they're cleaning up, and we have the compatibility problems.
There is always a tradeoff. But I think a well documented technically good solution is best.
Yes one way databases could work. They can be fast, accurate, reliable and secure. But there are a few reasons why I don't see it happening.
1. Linking transactions together is seen as valuable to those tracking data. The grocery store would love to know that I buy Doritos every day, and that I just moved so they should order fewer Doritos.
2. People don't understand this technology. Since we can't read who did what, how can we really track what is going on, how can we be sure that only paying customers get service. They don't understand so they don't trust. Complicated solutions like this are new, and implementations are seen as generally troublesome. I wouldn't bet my company on it, and the current crop of mangers won't either.
3. Not enough pressure from customers. Why go for this complicated, expensive risky new technology that is less useful to us when our customers don't even care about it.
I think it is mostly a perception and Cost/Benefit problem.
However if you insist on having a Sony or IBM laptop, you are restricting your choices. But you still have options, I was listing them.
You are not being forced to buy Windows. You are chosing to buy it. You could buy someone elses laptop, ask them to change it, force them to change it, or simply not buy one. You choose not to buy another laptop. They don't see enough demand to change it. You don't have the time/money to force them to change. and you don't want to go without. Seems like it is your problem.
I take the value of what I want, and the cost of the product (with the crap I don't want). If the value to me exceeds the purchase price, I buy it. If the products cost exceeds my perceived value of it, I do not buy it. You have this option too.
When I bought my car, I didn't care about some "features", in fact I would prefer not to have them, but it is a package deal, that's what I chose.
I generally buy a preassembled computer because it is cheaper then buying all the components separately. Even though I end up with some things I don't care about.
You could build your own laptop, it would just be much more expensive then just buying one with "extra" features.
That is the key point people SHOULD be upset about.
You can't argue that you shouldn't have to follow a countries laws while you are in that country. The origional issue was that a Russian citizen in Russia, working for a Russian company, shouldn't have to worry about US law.
Maybe what is killing Liquid Audio is poor management and outside investor influence.
Oh no, the people that OWN THE COMPANY are exerting their influence.
I don't know what you believe in, but I think the owners of a company should have COMPLETE control of a company, irrespective of them being "outside investors" or not.
I'm Canadian, this is my opinion, not any generally held view, although I think it might be.
I think it has to do with the gun distribution, urban guns kill more people, rural guns don't kill as many people.
Generally a gun is for hunting, target shooting, or protection from animals. Most of the used guns are hunting rifles, with small magazines.
If your gun is used as a tool, and you treat it properly with respect you don't have accidents like children finding a loaded gun laying around.
If you have a gun soley for protection from other gun wielding persons then there is a higher risk of you shooting someone, than if you have it to protect you from a random dangerous animal.
Initially they weren't sure how to pay for it, and this solution evolved. Now after many decades, and lots of profit things are changing, they will find a way.
Paid placements (Truman Show type adds), Sponsored programs (No Boundaries (Ford)), ads in the corner, a little box (like the 24 hour news channel).
And well if they can't make big profits, they'll leave and someone else will pick it up. If all the big broadcasters give up a local community group may do educational or informational programming, or promote local talent. The resource will remain available, and someone will find a use for it, probaly a better use.
Slashdot Mirror
That is probaly what will happen.
Technical compliance, while completely avoiding the spirit of the standard.
Of course if I was MS, that is what I would do too.
Really? You can send anyone of your chossing a bill and then sue them just 'cause they didn't pay? How do you know you're even sending it to the proper accounts payable department?
Yes you can sue anyone for not paying a bill.
In court they can just argue they're not the right person. That is why we have small claims court, to facilitate small claims cheaply and easily for all 3 parties. (You, them and the gov)
Quarter on quarter growth of 50%, for 2 quarters after a new product.
I don't think that will continue for a year or so, you're suggesting 500% in the next year (1.5^4)
Linux use is growing, but that isn't all Redhat, and that isn't all Advance server either.
I think there will be growth, lots in subscriptions and valuable service, but I don't see Redhat growing profit by 100x in the next few years.
I do think that they are doing better, and will probaly be somewhat successful, just not what hteir market cap suggests.
People don't buy quality, they tend to buy the cheapest they can get away with.
The Pioneer project wasn't cheap, they got what they paid for.
Computers I don't care, they're so cheap, and advancing so quickly I only need it to last 2-3 years. I would like my hard drive to last a bit longer, but the rest who cares.
They need to VASTY increase their sales to justify their market cap
But even if any sales generate 100% profit, they need to double their sales to justify their market cap.
Redhat has 170 million shares outstanding.
A Market capitalization of 1 billion dollars.
$300k isn't going to cut it. (annually, quarterly, monthly or even weekly.)
Daily earnings of $300k would be decent.
1% profit on their sales is a little slim.
They've still got a way to go to justify their price
You can use the old kernel, you can use the new kernel, you can use your own kernel. Everyone can make whatever they want.
Untrue. Most people are incapable of hacking kernel code, or any kind of code.
You can learn, you can hire someone, a group can get together and hire someone. A company could be formed to service that need.
Blackmail the user base?
With free software they can't force you to move, the software doesn't self destruct.
If you don't like it, go to BeOS or wherever.
And that multibillion dollar business can't find a handful of guys to make their own kernel.
I don't think kernel developers are _that_ expensive
You can use the old kernel, you can use the new kernel, you can use your own kernel.
Everyone can make whatever they want.
They don't owe you anything.
The best solution depends on your point of view.
For some technical correctness is a primary goal, in Linux this means that sometimes features and interfaces change.
This may tend to piss of some, but you end up with a technically superior product.
For others consistency of interfaces may be most important and technical correctness is secondary.
This tends to generate lots of legacy crap, we see this in MS Windows. Now they're cleaning up, and we have the compatibility problems.
There is always a tradeoff. But I think a well documented technically good solution is best.
Yes one way databases could work. They can be fast, accurate, reliable and secure.
But there are a few reasons why I don't see it happening.
1. Linking transactions together is seen as valuable to those tracking data. The grocery store would love to know that I buy Doritos every day, and that I just moved so they should order fewer Doritos.
2. People don't understand this technology. Since we can't read who did what, how can we really track what is going on, how can we be sure that only paying customers get service. They don't understand so they don't trust. Complicated solutions like this are new, and implementations are seen as generally troublesome. I wouldn't bet my company on it, and the current crop of mangers won't either.
3. Not enough pressure from customers. Why go for this complicated, expensive risky new technology that is less useful to us when our customers don't even care about it.
I think it is mostly a perception and Cost/Benefit problem.
Diplomatic immunity exists to keep the representatives from facing trumped up charges and harrassment from the host country.
Theoretically if a diplomat commits a crime, they are constrained by the laws of their country, and will be tried and charged.
This does happen, but generally only with larger crimes.
You could buy a laptop from somewhere else.
However if you insist on having a Sony or IBM laptop, you are restricting your choices. But you still have options, I was listing them.
You are not being forced to buy Windows. You are chosing to buy it. You could buy someone elses laptop, ask them to change it, force them to change it, or simply not buy one.
You choose not to buy another laptop. They don't see enough demand to change it. You don't have the time/money to force them to change. and you don't want to go without.
Seems like it is your problem.
I take the value of what I want, and the cost of the product (with the crap I don't want). If the value to me exceeds the purchase price, I buy it. If the products cost exceeds my perceived value of it, I do not buy it.
You have this option too.
Consumers have been known to change corporate behaviour. If people don't buy laptops with XP, companies will sell laptops without XP.
If owners don't like how a company is acting, they can make the company change.
Sure you can build your own, or you could contract IBM/Sony to build it to your specifications.
This special order would probaly end up costing you MUCH more then just paying for the extra crap you don't want, but that is your choice.
Free market, buy what you want. You are not being forced to buy windows, you're just not willing to seek out alternatives.
If you really want to protest, buy stock (become a part owner of the company), and complain about these practices at the next shareholders meeting.
I agree, you can choose what you purchase.
When I bought my car, I didn't care about some "features", in fact I would prefer not to have them, but it is a package deal, that's what I chose.
I generally buy a preassembled computer because it is cheaper then buying all the components separately. Even though I end up with some things I don't care about.
You could build your own laptop, it would just be much more expensive then just buying one with "extra" features.
Most of the CD's I burn (about 40 in the last month)
were, linux CD's (debian/mandrake/gentoo)
Audio (from mp3.com, there is nice stuff in Electronic/Ambient)
CD's of digital photos.
I shouldn't have to pay Britney Spears for my family photos.
It isn't illegal to talk about security (yet). His presentation wasn't illegal.
Someone else (his employer) sold the software in the US, not him.
He didn't violate US law on US soil.
He violated a US law on Russian soil.
That is the key point people SHOULD be upset about.
You can't argue that you shouldn't have to follow a countries laws while you are in that country. The origional issue was that a Russian citizen in Russia, working for a Russian company, shouldn't have to worry about US law.
The connotation of hacker is bad. You don't want to create a "bad impression" in court.
I thought this thread was about Honduras, not the US.
Maybe what is killing Liquid Audio is poor management and outside investor influence.
Oh no, the people that OWN THE COMPANY are exerting their influence.
I don't know what you believe in, but I think the owners of a company should have COMPLETE control of a company, irrespective of them being "outside investors" or not.
I'm Canadian, this is my opinion, not any generally held view, although I think it might be.
I think it has to do with the gun distribution, urban guns kill more people, rural guns don't kill as many people.
Generally a gun is for hunting, target shooting, or protection from animals. Most of the used guns are hunting rifles, with small magazines.
If your gun is used as a tool, and you treat it properly with respect you don't have accidents like children finding a loaded gun laying around.
If you have a gun soley for protection from other gun wielding persons then there is a higher risk of you shooting someone, than if you have it to protect you from a random dangerous animal.
I did read the links.
Amazon released a bot that negatively affected the affiliate websites.
This is at the very least inconsiderate.
I posted my opinion how this or similar activities COULD be handled.
You seem quite defensive about it, were you the one who wrote a buggy bot?
Initially they weren't sure how to pay for it, and this solution evolved.
Now after many decades, and lots of profit things are changing, they will find a way.
Paid placements (Truman Show type adds), Sponsored programs (No Boundaries (Ford)), ads in the corner, a little box (like the 24 hour news channel).
And well if they can't make big profits, they'll leave and someone else will pick it up.
If all the big broadcasters give up a local community group may do educational or informational programming, or promote local talent.
The resource will remain available, and someone will find a use for it, probaly a better use.