I think you're a bit confused about what a "contract" is. You say: "got a nice $5 a month plan that has no contract " - that's a $5 per month contract. If you don't use the phone, you pay $5.
I, by contrast have a pay-as-you-go phone, with no contract. Last month my call charges and total payment was £2.30. The month before £0. This month it is likely to be £30.
Bizarre, I came here to post pretty much the same thing, except from an eco-nut point of view, I would absolutely love my house of the future to have a combination of wind and solar power, a combined heat/light heating system to make the most of the precious fuel I do have to use. I would like to have it use rainwater intelligently, use waste water for flushing toilets, smart glass to minimize cooling/heating needs and some radical insulation.
I would like to sell excess energy back to the grid.
Yes, I know that doing this by myself would make zero change to the world's climate, but in order to be *my* house of the future, it would have to be a world where sufficient people would be doing the same thing to ensure that the above technology was relatively cheap and ubiquitous.
I'd also like a plentiful stock of writeable DVDs that didn't scratch and which lasted for ever. But that's probably a pipedream.
Simply put: when you become a publicly held company you have a responsibility to your shareholders.
And providing manipulative "guidance" in a desparate bid to stabilise stock prices by giving hints isn't one of them, which is why it is not mandatory. Presumably the shareholders had a duty to read the prospectus where it said the company would not issue guidance.
Until upper management learns this, their stock price is going to continue to decline sharply.
Come again? The stock price will change depending on each quarter's results combined with the investor's view on longer term prospects given the company's stated plan and management competence. Without guidance all that happens is that there is a greater divergence of opinion as to what next quarter's results will be.
How exactly is it an "evil" thing to be open and honest with your shareholders rather than asking them to trust in your "master plan?"
This has nothing to do with a master plan, this is all about analysts wanting to avoid looking foolish by using hints from Google on short-term results.
That's like listening to the guy in the back alley who says "trust me, just close your eyes."
Not really, unless the guy in the back alley also produces quarterly figures.
Shareholders are going to become frustrated and begin to unload their shares as they realize that they own hugely inflated stock with no real idea of how the company intends to achieve that valuation on the books and not just in the eyes of stock market prospectors.
I may agree, but guidance or the lack of guidance won't change that.
Insightful, I think; it will be education to examine which analysts get the Google financials right and which fail abysmally. The analyst community would like to keep the proof of their own incompetence hidden from investors.
I have no problem at all with Web pages that emulate desktop apps. It can be great, it can be fast and elegant. But there has to be a need; here we see a Web page emulating a desktop app emulating a Web page, IMHO. It just gets in the way when simpler would be better.
Yes, I nearly mentioned that in my original post. You've got me thinking about why this was thought to be an abomination. I suspect the problem is that it is an abrogation of responsibility by the designers; it's as if they couldn't really be bothered to think about how to structure and declutter the menus, instead they just said 'Oh we'll just show the most recently used ones and let the ueer behaviour do the design for us.
On the one hand it's not a bad idea. On the other it ticked me off.
Precisely; it is remarkable the number of people who hanker back to the Word or indeed Wordperfect of the mid 90's. This was a time before feeping creaturitis had led to a situation where the user could spend several minutes navigating menus looking for a particular function.
Sadly, if I were to be brutally honest, I would say that this is one area where OO.o really isn't 10 years behind MS Office, it is jam-packed with seldom used functions, that however is the price of getting involved in a tick-box war with MS Office (which open office really has to).
When they get older, I'm sure we'll butt heads and maybe end up with a console
Speaking as a parent of a 3 year old and a 6 month old, I think the 'butt heads' things is a bit weird. My kids get to watch virtually zero TV but enjoy mucking about with me on the computer and playing simple games. This isn't competitive any more than playing with play dough is, or building train tracks (OK, I build a mean train-track). It's a way of sharing some fun. And if she learns to handle a mouse, so be it.
What's the point of the "So" at the start of your sentence? It doesn't add information, emotion or elaborate any facts. Try removing it - you will find your sentence works just as well.
And lovely words they are too. It's all a bit wing-and-a-prayer though isn't it? I'd be much happier if it actually appeared in the license. I wonder why it doesn't.
And that ladies and gentlemen demonstrates how someone who is unable to partake in a real debate on Slashdot will often initially indulge in a bit of ad hominem name-calling before slinking away.
You seem to have failed to have included any facts that might bolster your argument.. Your cousin owns the local movie rental place. Great. And? He doesn't pay a premium for early-release rental copies, is that what you are struggling to tell me?
Take deep breaths, I'm sure you will manage to make your point cogently any message now; no, really.
Yes, the FAQ is quite clear on that, but the interesting issue is that the license itself isn't clear. The FAQ has no legal standing, only the license.
Logically, and perhaps legal there is nothing to distinguish distribution within an organization with distribution outside; particularly when an organisation may well employ external contractors etc.
You also appear to have difficulty with the basic economics of rental and PPV. The film companies make a lot of money from pay-per-view, they get a direct cut of the revenue from the TV company. I don't know if you had noticed, but rental companies get their copies of a DVD/Video well before the retail release, the price of these rental items are well above the subsequent price of the retail boxes. In other words the rental places pay a premium for the early availability of the DVDs and this premium is used to offset the subsequent loss of sales that the studios believe is incurred.
I hope this helps, and do try to avoid calling someone a moron when commenting outside your area of competence.
I bet that is precisely it. They have a knowledge-base and set of scripts that adequately handles Windows XP. The cost of supporting a bunch of Linux newbies is not going to be trivial. If I were Dell, I'd probably stick to Windows too.
I came here to make exactly the same point. Stripping out the potential to run the fabulous new eye-candy seems a really bizarre idea. It took me all the way back to the early days of OS/2 when you could buy a version with presentation manager (the windowed GUI) or with a lovely character-based interface.
EXCEPT, thinking about it - if you strip out Aero there's not much to differentiate Vista home edition from XP. I suppose this could be a simple way of continuing to sell something to people who don't want anything newer, better and shinier, they just want the ability to buy another license of Windows that will look and work pretty much like the copy of XP they have on their other machines.
You have to understand that all company "guidance" to analysts is, is a way for most companies to manage expectations so that, shock-horror, their actual results come in just a little better than expectations and the stock can nudge up a bit on announcement day. I think "guidance" is fundamentally manipulative.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's my insightful mod points when I want them.
Then again, I still use a Palm V because I want a PDA to be a simple, small cheap PDA. So I'm probably not the target demographic.
You're right. I tend to be over-pedantic in the morning.
I think you're a bit confused about what a "contract" is. You say: "got a nice $5 a month plan that has no contract " - that's a $5 per month contract. If you don't use the phone, you pay $5.
I, by contrast have a pay-as-you-go phone, with no contract. Last month my call charges and total payment was £2.30. The month before £0. This month it is likely to be £30.
we're already working for the government for free
Really, you get nothing back in return for your tax dollars? Nothing at all?
Bizarre, I came here to post pretty much the same thing, except from an eco-nut point of view, I would absolutely love my house of the future to have a combination of wind and solar power, a combined heat/light heating system to make the most of the precious fuel I do have to use. I would like to have it use rainwater intelligently, use waste water for flushing toilets, smart glass to minimize cooling/heating needs and some radical insulation.
I would like to sell excess energy back to the grid.
Yes, I know that doing this by myself would make zero change to the world's climate, but in order to be *my* house of the future, it would have to be a world where sufficient people would be doing the same thing to ensure that the above technology was relatively cheap and ubiquitous.
I'd also like a plentiful stock of writeable DVDs that didn't scratch and which lasted for ever. But that's probably a pipedream.
Simply put: when you become a publicly held company you have a responsibility to your shareholders.
And providing manipulative "guidance" in a desparate bid to stabilise stock prices by giving hints isn't one of them, which is why it is not mandatory. Presumably the shareholders had a duty to read the prospectus where it said the company would not issue guidance.
Until upper management learns this, their stock price is going to continue to decline sharply.
Come again? The stock price will change depending on each quarter's results combined with the investor's view on longer term prospects given the company's stated plan and management competence. Without guidance all that happens is that there is a greater divergence of opinion as to what next quarter's results will be.
How exactly is it an "evil" thing to be open and honest with your shareholders rather than asking them to trust in your "master plan?"
This has nothing to do with a master plan, this is all about analysts wanting to avoid looking foolish by using hints from Google on short-term results.
That's like listening to the guy in the back alley who says "trust me, just close your eyes."
Not really, unless the guy in the back alley also produces quarterly figures.
Shareholders are going to become frustrated and begin to unload their shares as they realize that they own hugely inflated stock with no real idea of how the company intends to achieve that valuation on the books and not just in the eyes of stock market prospectors.
I may agree, but guidance or the lack of guidance won't change that.
Insightful, I think; it will be education to examine which analysts get the Google financials right and which fail abysmally. The analyst community would like to keep the proof of their own incompetence hidden from investors.
This raises obvious questions about the value of the 'hairs'.
Given that it is blind, I suppose they may be tactile, like a cat's whiskers.
Or perhaps detritous gets stuck in the hairs and it is a rudimentary filter feeder.
Or perhaps most lobsters shave regularly, but since this one's blind... nah.
I have no problem at all with Web pages that emulate desktop apps. It can be great, it can be fast and elegant. But there has to be a need; here we see a Web page emulating a desktop app emulating a Web page, IMHO. It just gets in the way when simpler would be better.
Yes, I nearly mentioned that in my original post. You've got me thinking about why this was thought to be an abomination. I suspect the problem is that it is an abrogation of responsibility by the designers; it's as if they couldn't really be bothered to think about how to structure and declutter the menus, instead they just said 'Oh we'll just show the most recently used ones and let the ueer behaviour do the design for us.
On the one hand it's not a bad idea. On the other it ticked me off.
Precisely; it is remarkable the number of people who hanker back to the Word or indeed Wordperfect of the mid 90's. This was a time before feeping creaturitis had led to a situation where the user could spend several minutes navigating menus looking for a particular function.
Sadly, if I were to be brutally honest, I would say that this is one area where OO.o really isn't 10 years behind MS Office, it is jam-packed with seldom used functions, that however is the price of getting involved in a tick-box war with MS Office (which open office really has to).
When they get older, I'm sure we'll butt heads and maybe end up with a console
Speaking as a parent of a 3 year old and a 6 month old, I think the 'butt heads' things is a bit weird. My kids get to watch virtually zero TV but enjoy mucking about with me on the computer and playing simple games. This isn't competitive any more than playing with play dough is, or building train tracks (OK, I build a mean train-track). It's a way of sharing some fun. And if she learns to handle a mouse, so be it.
What's the point of the "So" at the start of your sentence? It doesn't add information, emotion or elaborate any facts. Try removing it - you will find your sentence works just as well.
Fixed that for you.
Actually As I understand it, Goodmail is supposed to only certify mail senders who use opt-in.
Of course it could all be a big scam, but if it works as advertised it should be OK.
Actually, by definition, anyone who pays to send you a certified mail has just got to be someone whose list you actively opted-in to.
And lovely words they are too. It's all a bit wing-and-a-prayer though isn't it? I'd be much happier if it actually appeared in the license. I wonder why it doesn't.
And that ladies and gentlemen demonstrates how someone who is unable to partake in a real debate on Slashdot will often initially indulge in a bit of ad hominem name-calling before slinking away.
It's been educational.
You seem to have failed to have included any facts that might bolster your argument.. Your cousin owns the local movie rental place. Great. And? He doesn't pay a premium for early-release rental copies, is that what you are struggling to tell me?
Take deep breaths, I'm sure you will manage to make your point cogently any message now; no, really.
Yes, the FAQ is quite clear on that, but the interesting issue is that the license itself isn't clear. The FAQ has no legal standing, only the license.
Logically, and perhaps legal there is nothing to distinguish distribution within an organization with distribution outside; particularly when an organisation may well employ external contractors etc.
You also appear to have difficulty with the basic economics of rental and PPV. The film companies make a lot of money from pay-per-view, they get a direct cut of the revenue from the TV company. I don't know if you had noticed, but rental companies get their copies of a DVD/Video well before the retail release, the price of these rental items are well above the subsequent price of the retail boxes. In other words the rental places pay a premium for the early availability of the DVDs and this premium is used to offset the subsequent loss of sales that the studios believe is incurred.
I hope this helps, and do try to avoid calling someone a moron when commenting outside your area of competence.
I bet that is precisely it. They have a knowledge-base and set of scripts that adequately handles Windows XP. The cost of supporting a bunch of Linux newbies is not going to be trivial. If I were Dell, I'd probably stick to Windows too.
FYI the worm in question only spreads via Bonjour (nee Rendevous) connections, not via standard AIM chats.
I came here to make exactly the same point. Stripping out the potential to run the fabulous new eye-candy seems a really bizarre idea. It took me all the way back to the early days of OS/2 when you could buy a version with presentation manager (the windowed GUI) or with a lovely character-based interface.
EXCEPT, thinking about it - if you strip out Aero there's not much to differentiate Vista home edition from XP. I suppose this could be a simple way of continuing to sell something to people who don't want anything newer, better and shinier, they just want the ability to buy another license of Windows that will look and work pretty much like the copy of XP they have on their other machines.
You suggest borrowing wouldn't effect a publisher's income, I demonstrate that in some real-world cases it would, you call me stupid or a troll.
Nicely argued there.
You have to understand that all company "guidance" to analysts is, is a way for most companies to manage expectations so that, shock-horror, their actual results come in just a little better than expectations and the stock can nudge up a bit on announcement day. I think "guidance" is fundamentally manipulative.