Generally, people become famous because of an outstanding trait or skill that they do have.
Famous peoples' lives affect more people than your mom or you do... there is absolutely nothing wrong with mourning the loss of a "voice" in South Park. After all, we did not know her personally.
That may be the funniest site I have seen in a looong time. Read it, and then, for the best part, look at the guestbook. That always has me laughing my ass off.
... uhhh, usually things posted under "Humor" are not things to be taken seriosly.
Sheesh, this certainly comes up a lot... maybe there needs to be a slightly more obvious icon. Like perhaps a huge clown face screaming"This is a joke you fucking IDIOTS!!!"
Maybe that would help folks such as Cyberllama here.
Go ahead and read it again... now, do you think I was talking about Clinton or Gates?
Sorry to jar your world so badly. But thanks for the warning... I am consulting my lawyers as we speak as to the impending litigation over my erred and absent-minded statement.
The story goes that while Bill Gates was on the campaign trail in Arkansas (a long time ago essentially), he raped her. She kept silent about it for years and years until all the new cases sprang up and she felt she should make her story known as well.
The Wall Street Journal (obviously no Clinton fan) was actually the news source that came first with the most details, and how the story was buried. The article was huge, and Broaddrick's story is very believable (in addition to others who back her story).
Especially since the FCC has taken more of a "hands off" approach in terms of new technologies. A while back they ruled not to regulate the broadband cable companies, in favor of letting the whole industry get their services out and then seeing what happens.
Granted this is a little different, but it still suprises me.
The Microsoft Anti-trust case is different from the Standard Oil and AT&T cases in many important areas.
Most importantly, Standard Oil and AT&T controled virtually the entire infrastructure to their industries, making entry close to impossible. While Microsoft has been proven to misuse its monopoly power... it really controls little infrastructure. The barriers to entry in its business (and businesses) are relatively low compared to those cases (and also compared to other industries of today). The bariers have been in the form of actual "fear" of competing with Microsoft, rather than a real barrier in of itself.
Despite their underhanded tactics we are already starting to see competitors in Microsoft's primary business (in the form of BSD, linux and a few others)... isn't this proof that little action really needs to be taken? Yes, they should be punished for past abuse of monopoly power, but isn't the nature of their business one that allows entrance, competition and the nature of a business cycle at a much higher level then our other anti-trust case, thus making further anti-trust actions unnesecary?
The most impressive technological advance to come from Disney this century is by far and away that new Beta Tracker that Walt Disney Jr. and Bill Gates came up with!
Goodness, Since forwarding that message to all my friends and family, I have received hundreds of dollars and free trips to Disney... I tell you, the possibilities of that there Beta Tracker are limitless!
What an idiot to think that slashdot might be full of a bunch of geeks and losers that could relate a chess anecdote to the subject at hand.... oh wait... ;)
My college had an honor code that was actually pretty strictly enforced.
If this is true:
"Our code of student conduct prohibits students from taking and distributing notes without the professor's permission," Mr. Zuidema said.
Then the school has every right to punish those who are distributing the notes.
However, I went to a private school, and UCLA is a public school... most likely it is more difficult to enforce a college code there.
Kinda like how the Boy Scout's are allowed to exclude homosexuals because it is a private organization, while obviously the government would never be allowed to do that.
Texans really do have the stubbor pride that can only be rivaled by New York and New Jersey (nahhh...).
I lived with a Texan for a couple years in college (in Michigan), and the nonstop argument he had with about the entire school population over "Who was a better running back?" Emmit Smight or Barry Sanders, drove me bonkers.
Not sure how this became a Texas vs. Wisconsin thing... but I will say the beer (Macro AND Micro), is about 500 times better in Wisconsin.
Lone Star:The National Beer of the Republic of Texas
I am not sure how much of this is a hoax, and how much is real... but how many of you read the supposed letter from Mahir?
OK, so the first 3/4 is cute, and the amateur english from the website continues, but what the hell is all the PC (polically correct, not personal computer... geeks)crap!?
It was obviously written by someone completely different than whomever wrote the first 3/4. It just did not fit in at all. The English and grammar are completely different.
One thing I will note however, is that Murder is not a crime in the Business World.
It happens all the time. Companies use underhanded tactics and deal makings to run companies into the ground on a regular basis. Sure, I feel sorry for the 85% of companies that are bound to fail... especially when they really did have the better product or service. But, do we need to bring in the government to coddle them?
Yes, Microsoft has used what is defined as monopoly power to unfairly punish other companies. I have stated that there is no argument to this. But what I wonder, is should their actions really be defined as such? Especially given the market today.
Re:The most disturbing thing... Misdirected:
on
Everything Microsoft
·
· Score: 2
Yes, the most disturbing thing would be the government seizing the assets of private citizens... but that is not inherent in this case, as others have pointed out.
However, it is patr of the Clinton plan to invest Social Security into the stock market. My God, what a nightmare it would be to know that the government actually DID have a nice chunk of a company like Microsoft. You wanna talk about scary!
I think that if the Government just keeps the Microsoft case in the open for five years, that will be enough to break the monopoly and restore a sembalance of competition. In that respect, the government wouldn't actually do anything and the market would correct itself. Too bad it takes Uncle Sam playing nanny...
Right now, even without the impact of the anti-trust case... new systems have emerged! People are getting fed up with Microsoft's shoddy products, and are moving to Linux, BSD, Mac and others. This is going to force them to better their products... or they will continue to lose more. Isn't that competition? The market is working through its cycle, one could argue.
If you think about it... the government was really too late! Microsoft had very damaging monopoly power a couple of years ago, as Netscape was being run into the ground and their other offenses were happening. Now, their hold simply is not as strong. But my point is, is that this has come about without the intervention of the government (though, you are right that a lot of the very recent progress was probably because of the government essentially putting a tether on MS with this case going on)... maybe they could cause it to happen faster, but is it necesary? Is it necesary for the public to allow the government to step in when the possiblity of things working themselves out in the market exist?
I didn't know Compaq was in the business of contacting the dead. Well, I guess the way they've run their business into the ground, it's probably appropiate.
Heh... maybe they should be doing that. I can think of a number of "deceased" they might want to learn from... Packard Bell?
Who in their right mind, living in the mid-century would believe that we, in almost the year 2000 have not already actively colonized space stations, that the moon is not home to at least a lab and that we have not even set foot on Mars yet!?
We have done squat as far as the "final frontier" is concerned! Well, of course the main reason is that there simply no money in it (at least right now). So capitalism has thwarted Mr. Disney's dreams in yet another way:)
Instead, the "final frontier" has been internalized. The Internet, mapping out the human gene code, modern medecine and biotechnologies. There is money in that... that is where our interest lies... not space.
I have joked about the new silver spacesuit I bought for New Year's this year... because afterall, that is what everyone will be wearing in the 21st Century!? Now, who knows when I will really be able to wear that and fit in!? Probably not for a while. Alas....
Under current laws, MS certainly has a monopoly and has abused that monopoly power. I do not feel there is any argument left to that.
Where there still is potential for argument is: Are these current laws fair and right?
It is obvious that the Microsoft case is vastly different than the Standard Oil and AT&T anti-trust cases.
The market is vastly different, and changing so rapidly. As someone worded earlier, the punishment has to be dealt soon, because in 5 years, Microsoft may no longer have a true monopoly. Well, isn't this a stronger case to leave this market alone... and that it will eventually situate itself for the better? Close to the same thing happened with IBM. The trial of IBM lasted for over a decade!! In the end, what they were fighting about was next to a moot point and the case was essentially thrown out by Reagan. Why was the case a moot point? Well, because of a pesky little company by the name of Microsoft to name a big reason.
It can be argued that this is merely the cycle of business. IBM is still doing well, but they do not have the absolute control they were feared to have in the (then) future.
I would argue that Microsoft actually has made a good case that competition has been rearing its ugly head in recent times. Do we need the government to essentially "bust the kneecaps" of Microsoft, or can we sit back and see what becomes of this competition without the government's intervention?
Personally, I am in favor of breaking up the company. I think that this will benefit every party involved (except for the zealots that want to see the company ran out of business). But, I am not sure if the laws (and again, current laws certainly do) *should* mandate that Microsoft needs to be punished.
Compaq, more so than any other computer manufacturer, embraces these new mediums. I wonder if it is because they see their core business (duh, computers) receding to Dell and the others. The company has also been going through a lot of difficulties lately with management and making the transition to a direct sales company.
On topic here... one of my friends was recently spouting on and on about his newly discovered Real Jukebox, and how he was thinking of buying a sub woofer and new speakers just for his computer, he enjoyed it so much. His largest wish was that he could copy his set lists onto CDs. So I think this sort f thing could really catch on. Obviously the largest factor will be price... but as always, I am sure it will come down. If I had the option to pay less for say, only 3 or 4 CDs worth... I would certainly do it. But that might not be an option.
Judge Jackson has set a schedule Microsoft must follow:
Dec. 6, 1999 - Justice files conclusions of law brief
Jan. 17, 2000 - Microsoft response due
Jan. 24 - Justice may file reply to Microsoft
Jan. 31 - Final reply from Microsoft due.
The goal is to keep this from becoming another IBM anti-trust case... which went on for over a decade before Reagan just threw the thing out. Hell, in even 5 years operating sytems could be completely different outdated and the case deemed worthless... I think they recognize this.
Low turnover means those individuals who have proven themselves productive in generating new technologies in a small company on the open market remain working with and for the company--thus, when Cisco purchases a highly skilled research organization, they actually get what makes the organization what it is--the people.
But is $7 billion a little steep price "for the people"?
I think it is a fascinating environment. You basically have NorTel, Lucent and Cisco all trying to muscle in on each other's turf. Cisco being the youngest and most unique I would say... but there is most likely room enough for all three to be highly succesful in the future.
You are correct that Lucent does buying as well, in fact they are trimming about 1,500 technician jobs from recent acquistitions (most are receiving full pension).
I always like to look at things from an investment stand point. I see that Lucent trades at about 60 times their earnings (pretty expensive), while Cisco trades at 120 times earnings... that makes me nervous. What happens when we hit a dry spell and Cisco's cash reserves and market capitalization start to dwindle a bit. Can they prosper (I am sure they will survive) without the new acquisitions beefing up R & D?
Aside, I do have friends that work for smaller companies... and essentially one of their main goals (as a company) is to be bought by Cisco.
This is somewhat similar to my friends in Biotech companies that hope to be bought by the Pfizers, Merks and Eli Lilly's out there... kinda too bad they could not do well on their own (most fail).
Slashdot Mirror
Generally, people become famous because of an outstanding trait or skill that they do have.
Famous peoples' lives affect more people than your mom or you do... there is absolutely nothing wrong with mourning the loss of a "voice" in South Park. After all, we did not know her personally.
That may be the funniest site I have seen in a looong time. Read it, and then, for the best part, look at the guestbook. That always has me laughing my ass off.
... uhhh, usually things posted under "Humor" are not things to be taken seriosly.
Sheesh, this certainly comes up a lot... maybe there needs to be a slightly more obvious icon. Like perhaps a huge clown face screaming "This is a joke you fucking IDIOTS!!!"
Maybe that would help folks such as Cyberllama here.
The real question to be asked here is, "How will this affect the internet".
Do they even have a web page!?
If it does not have a "DOT-COM" on the end, I ain't touchin' it!
'Gates', or did you mean, 'Clinton'?
Go ahead and read it again... now, do you think I was talking about Clinton or Gates?
Sorry to jar your world so badly. But thanks for the warning... I am consulting my lawyers as we speak as to the impending litigation over my erred and absent-minded statement.
The story goes that while Bill Gates was on the campaign trail in Arkansas (a long time ago essentially), he raped her.
She kept silent about it for years and years until all the new cases sprang up and she felt she should make her story known as well.
The Wall Street Journal (obviously no Clinton fan) was actually the news source that came first with the most details, and how the story was buried. The article was huge, and Broaddrick's story is very believable (in addition to others who back her story).
Especially since the FCC has taken more of a "hands off" approach in terms of new technologies. A while back they ruled not to regulate the broadband cable companies, in favor of letting the whole industry get their services out and then seeing what happens.
Granted this is a little different, but it still suprises me.
The Microsoft Anti-trust case is different from the Standard Oil and AT&T cases in many important areas.
Most importantly, Standard Oil and AT&T controled virtually the entire infrastructure to their industries, making entry close to impossible. While Microsoft has been proven to misuse its monopoly power... it really controls little infrastructure. The barriers to entry in its business (and businesses) are relatively low compared to those cases (and also compared to other industries of today). The bariers have been in the form of actual "fear" of competing with Microsoft, rather than a real barrier in of itself.
Despite their underhanded tactics we are already starting to see competitors in Microsoft's primary business (in the form of BSD, linux and a few others)... isn't this proof that little action really needs to be taken? Yes, they should be punished for past abuse of monopoly power, but isn't the nature of their business one that allows entrance, competition and the nature of a business cycle at a much higher level then our other anti-trust case, thus making further anti-trust actions unnesecary?
The most impressive technological advance to come from Disney this century is by far and away that new Beta Tracker that Walt Disney Jr. and Bill Gates came up with!
Goodness, Since forwarding that message to all my friends and family, I have received hundreds of dollars and free trips to Disney... I tell you, the possibilities of that there Beta Tracker are limitless!
What an idiot to think that slashdot might be full of a bunch of geeks and losers that could relate a chess anecdote to the subject at hand....
oh wait...
;)
My college had an honor code that was actually pretty strictly enforced.
If this is true:
"Our code of student conduct prohibits students from taking and distributing notes without the professor's permission," Mr. Zuidema said.
Then the school has every right to punish those who are distributing the notes.
However, I went to a private school, and UCLA is a public school... most likely it is more difficult to enforce a college code there.
Kinda like how the Boy Scout's are allowed to exclude homosexuals because it is a private organization, while obviously the government would never be allowed to do that.
Sorry, the crack I was smoking there was a little potent on that inhale.
Smith
Texans really do have the stubbor pride that can only be rivaled by New York and New Jersey (nahhh...).
I lived with a Texan for a couple years in college (in Michigan), and the nonstop argument he had with about the entire school population over "Who was a better running back?" Emmit Smight or Barry Sanders, drove me bonkers.
Not sure how this became a Texas vs. Wisconsin thing... but I will say the beer (Macro AND Micro), is about 500 times better in Wisconsin.
Lone Star: The National Beer of the Republic of Texas
HA!
I am not sure how much of this is a hoax, and how much is real... but how many of you read the supposed letter from Mahir?
OK, so the first 3/4 is cute, and the amateur english from the website continues, but what the hell is all the PC (polically correct, not personal computer... geeks) crap!?
It was obviously written by someone completely different than whomever wrote the first 3/4. It just did not fit in at all. The English and grammar are completely different.
Just struck me as really odd.
... but I do not think this is an attempt to be misleading at all. No one is being taken advantage of.
If you do not want to contribute... then don't.
Easy solution.
One thing I will note however, is that Murder is not a crime in the Business World.
It happens all the time. Companies use underhanded tactics and deal makings to run companies into the ground on a regular basis. Sure, I feel sorry for the 85% of companies that are bound to fail... especially when they really did have the better product or service. But, do we need to bring in the government to coddle them?
Yes, Microsoft has used what is defined as monopoly power to unfairly punish other companies. I have stated that there is no argument to this. But what I wonder, is should their actions really be defined as such? Especially given the market today.
Yes, the most disturbing thing would be the government seizing the assets of private citizens... but that is not inherent in this case, as others have pointed out.
However, it is patr of the Clinton plan to invest Social Security into the stock market. My God, what a nightmare it would be to know that the government actually DID have a nice chunk of a company like Microsoft. You wanna talk about scary!
I think that if the Government just keeps the Microsoft case in the open for five years, that will be enough to break the monopoly and restore a sembalance of competition. In that respect, the government wouldn't actually do anything and the market would correct itself. Too bad it takes Uncle Sam playing nanny...
Right now, even without the impact of the anti-trust case... new systems have emerged! People are getting fed up with Microsoft's shoddy products, and are moving to Linux, BSD, Mac and others. This is going to force them to better their products... or they will continue to lose more. Isn't that competition? The market is working through its cycle, one could argue.
If you think about it... the government was really too late! Microsoft had very damaging monopoly power a couple of years ago, as Netscape was being run into the ground and their other offenses were happening. Now, their hold simply is not as strong. But my point is, is that this has come about without the intervention of the government (though, you are right that a lot of the very recent progress was probably because of the government essentially putting a tether on MS with this case going on)... maybe they could cause it to happen faster, but is it necesary? Is it necesary for the public to allow the government to step in when the possiblity of things working themselves out in the market exist?
I am not so sure myself.
I didn't know Compaq was in the business of contacting the dead. Well, I guess the way they've run their business into the ground, it's probably appropiate.
Heh... maybe they should be doing that. I can think of a number of "deceased" they might want to learn from... Packard Bell?
... I might actually read it when it is finished.
:)
Who in their right mind, living in the mid-century would believe that we, in almost the year 2000 have not already actively colonized space stations, that the moon is not home to at least a lab and that we have not even set foot on Mars yet!?
We have done squat as far as the "final frontier" is concerned! Well, of course the main reason is that there simply no money in it (at least right now). So capitalism has thwarted Mr. Disney's dreams in yet another way
Instead, the "final frontier" has been internalized. The Internet, mapping out the human gene code, modern medecine and biotechnologies. There is money in that... that is where our interest lies... not space.
I have joked about the new silver spacesuit I bought for New Year's this year... because afterall, that is what everyone will be wearing in the 21st Century!? Now, who knows when I will really be able to wear that and fit in!? Probably not for a while.
Alas....
Under current laws, MS certainly has a monopoly and has abused that monopoly power. I do not feel there is any argument left to that.
Where there still is potential for argument is: Are these current laws fair and right?
It is obvious that the Microsoft case is vastly different than the Standard Oil and AT&T anti-trust cases.
The market is vastly different, and changing so rapidly. As someone worded earlier, the punishment has to be dealt soon, because in 5 years, Microsoft may no longer have a true monopoly. Well, isn't this a stronger case to leave this market alone... and that it will eventually situate itself for the better?
Close to the same thing happened with IBM. The trial of IBM lasted for over a decade!! In the end, what they were fighting about was next to a moot point and the case was essentially thrown out by Reagan. Why was the case a moot point? Well, because of a pesky little company by the name of Microsoft to name a big reason.
It can be argued that this is merely the cycle of business. IBM is still doing well, but they do not have the absolute control they were feared to have in the (then) future.
I would argue that Microsoft actually has made a good case that competition has been rearing its ugly head in recent times. Do we need the government to essentially "bust the kneecaps" of Microsoft, or can we sit back and see what becomes of this competition without the government's intervention?
Personally, I am in favor of breaking up the company. I think that this will benefit every party involved (except for the zealots that want to see the company ran out of business). But, I am not sure if the laws (and again, current laws certainly do) *should* mandate that Microsoft needs to be punished.
Compaq, more so than any other computer manufacturer, embraces these new mediums. I wonder if it is because they see their core business (duh, computers) receding to Dell and the others.
The company has also been going through a lot of difficulties lately with management and making the transition to a direct sales company.
On topic here... one of my friends was recently spouting on and on about his newly discovered Real Jukebox, and how he was thinking of buying a sub woofer and new speakers just for his computer, he enjoyed it so much. His largest wish was that he could copy his set lists onto CDs. So I think this sort f thing could really catch on. Obviously the largest factor will be price... but as always, I am sure it will come down. If I had the option to pay less for say, only 3 or 4 CDs worth... I would certainly do it. But that might not be an option.
Judge Jackson has set a schedule Microsoft must follow:
Dec. 6, 1999 - Justice files conclusions of law brief
Jan. 17, 2000 - Microsoft response due
Jan. 24 - Justice may file reply to Microsoft
Jan. 31 - Final reply from Microsoft due.
The goal is to keep this from becoming another IBM anti-trust case... which went on for over a decade before Reagan just threw the thing out. Hell, in even 5 years operating sytems could be completely different outdated and the case deemed worthless... I think they recognize this.
So would it make sense for Lucent to be rolling these out with a service agreement with a fiber optics company, say... Qwest?
Low turnover means those individuals who have proven themselves productive in generating new technologies in a small company on the open market remain working with and for the company--thus, when Cisco purchases a highly skilled research organization, they actually get what makes the organization what it is--the people.
But is $7 billion a little steep price "for the people"?
I think it is a fascinating environment. You basically have NorTel, Lucent and Cisco all trying to muscle in on each other's turf. Cisco being the youngest and most unique I would say... but there is most likely room enough for all three to be highly succesful in the future.
You are correct that Lucent does buying as well, in fact they are trimming about 1,500 technician jobs from recent acquistitions (most are receiving full pension).
I always like to look at things from an investment stand point. I see that Lucent trades at about 60 times their earnings (pretty expensive), while Cisco trades at 120 times earnings... that makes me nervous. What happens when we hit a dry spell and Cisco's cash reserves and market capitalization start to dwindle a bit. Can they prosper (I am sure they will survive) without the new acquisitions beefing up R & D?
Aside, I do have friends that work for smaller companies... and essentially one of their main goals (as a company) is to be bought by Cisco.
This is somewhat similar to my friends in Biotech companies that hope to be bought by the Pfizers, Merks and Eli Lilly's out there... kinda too bad they could not do well on their own (most fail).