Now, obviously, Dell already has lots of options. But you'll note most of those options lead you to spending MORE money, not less money. And how many people really go to Dell to buy a computer and DON'T want windows on it? I would guess that the number is so small that the extra business Dell might get by offering a no-windows option is not worth the cost to them of doing so. Which is a perfectly rational business decision to make.
I would have to say I saw quite a few options to spend less when I bought my Dell.
The machine came with a 52x CD-ROM, and there was an offer for a free CD burner in the second bay, but I was also given the opportunity to decline the burner and drop $40 off the system price (which I did). I also downgraded the video card, cut the RAM to 128MB (which worked fine for me in the beginning, and by the time I really felt I needed more RAM the prices had dropped). I also didn't take the monitor (-$90) and bought a much nicer one on my own, downgraded the included speakers from the 2.1 setup to plain desktop speakers, and downgraded the multimedia keyboard and optical mouse to a basic keyboard and mouse with a ball. The only upgrade I made was substituting the Celeron processor for a full P4.
But then I did buy it four years ago, maybe things have changed.
2) No official/maintained Linux client, just an old one they used to support.
I think the fact a client is not required to use the service is one of its strengths. You can download new tracks for yourself anywhere you can get internet access and the ability to save them to a local disc. They allow two songs to download simultaneously at a time so it should be possible to configure any download manager to work under these restrictions.
I work for an outsourcing support company. The ISP/Cableco who was our client shall remain nameless, but here's what happened: They transitioned to a completely new billing system and whoever sold it to them had assured them the record would transition seamlessly from the old system, but they didn't. A percentage (forgot how many) of customer records had been goofed up in the transition. To fix this the home office needed copies of certain screens (about five different ones for each account) from the old billing system, so they knew what values to type in by hand on the new system.
They didn't have the time at the office to look up all these records themselves. Their solution was for us, the company providing customer support, to (I'm not making this up) take screen captures of the needed screens on the old billing system, print them out, and fax them to the home office halfway across the country. This faxing had to be done after normal business hours as our machine had to be free for other use during the day. Anyway, to give you an idea how much paper this was wasting, we were measuring usage by the ream, not the sheet. All of this paper was being fed through an autofeed on the fax/copier that would occasionally jam up, too. I volunteered for this assignment for the overtime.
Anyway, things were moving slowly and bugging from the fax/copier hiccups (this was a 30,000 page/month duty cycle copier that was used at closer to 50,000 pages according to HR) at about 2:00am I came up with a better idea, why are we printing these out and wasting all this paper when we can send them the screen shots themselves? I was noticing the readability was quite poor from some samples we sent back and forth with the other side. So we pasted the screen shots into Word documents, and then we tried to send the enormous Word documents over email, but the company's email server was complaining about the attachment size.
Well a co-worker had a GMail account he had been playing around with (this is when GMail was brand new, so he had gotten an invite for it) so we decided to try it because of the 10MB attachment limit. We could just upload the files and give the other side the log-in info and they could download the attachments at their leisure. Well, that didn't work out either, I think some of the files may have been too big or there was an issue getting the files uploaded, I don't remember anymore. But it didn't work out.
My next idea was to go back to faxing, but paperless. There was one workstation that had a dial-up modem instead of a NIC card, it was normally used to test access numbers for dial-up ISPs clients we had, but we hadn't used it in so long we didn't remember the login name to get into it, the password we were pretty sure of. After trying to guess it for a couple minutes I got the idea of booting the machine using a Knoppix CD and looking in C:\Documents and Settings\ to see what user folders were there (as I'd spot the correct login name amongst them). After we got logged into the machine we used a flash drive to transfer the files from the other machines we had been using to compile the Word screen shot documents. Then we'd open a document and fax it using Windows XP's built-in fax capabilities to the fax machine at the home office. So soon we had an over 50 page Word file printing over fax to the east coast with several more just like it queued up. It was moving slow but seemed to be working. The idea was we could now leave and let the machine fax the rest of the night.
I was excused to go home about 4am. I came in the next day around 1:30pm and found the fax calls had been interrupted around nine that morning. Apparently the home office had called because the same page was repeating over and over again on their side (which they naturally claimed must be an issue from our end). I didn't hear how they finished getting the records transmitted, but I think they went back to paper faxing again.
Now that I think about this, It would have probably been a better idea (if we'd had more than one day to do this) to just to take the huge Word documents and burn them to a CD and then Overnight the CD to the home office.
My cable ISP still caps my download at 100 GB a month. So, if I download a 1 GB+ movie, theres an extra $0.50+ cost to me on top of that film download.
Wait, why do you have to pay and extra 50 if you have a 100GB bandwidth cap? Wouldn't that only apply if you're already used up all the 100GB you were alloted?
So all those posts of mine you linked in your last reply, they were relevant to the stock options issues at Apple how? This conversation was taken off-topic long before this, by you. Probably about this point where you called me a Neanderthal.
There was a forged document, a problem with the accounting books, and emails captured that showed there was something screwy going on with the stock options.
All of which would have been scrutinized as part of Apple's own internal investigation and the SEC's. There is no conspiracy theory here.
Steve Jobs is the CEO of Apple, and must sign off on the accounting books, stock options, and other decisions that a CEO makes.
I'm sorry, you are incorrect. Steve Jobs does not sign off on his own stock options. The board of directors approves those motions and in Apple's case, an independent panel also makes decisions about compensation.
A CEO takes responsibility for his actions and behaviors and the actions and behaviors of his company and the people working under him. The CEO is accountable to the board of directors and the stock holders, but also the SEC and other government agencies. To suggest that the CEO does not sign off on the accounting books, official documents on stock options, and has no idea of what people under him are doing, paints Steve Jobs as a very poor CEO who cannot even manage his own company.
I'm pretty sure the CFO is more directly responsible for the books than the CEO. And in the Apple stock options case, that person is being held accountable for quite a bit of this.
CEOs cannot be responsible for every little aspect of the company's running, that's why they have their subordinate executives. This isn't like a ship in the Queen's navy where the captain is directly responsible for all actions of the crew. I bring that up as you reminded me of a major plot point of Star Trek VI.
So I give you two possible options: Option #1 Steve Jobs is incompetent and was used as a puppet by those under him. Option #2 Steve Jobs is not incompetent and knew of everything going on, and is involved somehow but is using a lawyer to protect himself.
Now you're creating a false dichotomy, a common logical flaw.
There are several lawsuits pending over the stock options scandal and they were all targeting Steve Jobs, now almost all of them have been amended to list Apple Computer, Inc as the defendant instead. This topic is a dead horse. The investigation is over, Steve Jobs has been cleared of wrongdoing. You can go back to squirting people with your Zune now.
O'Hear writes: "Unless the time required to sign-in, post to, and maintain profiles across each network is reduced, it will be impossible for most users to participate in multiple sites for very long."
Duh. The point is the sites are in competition with one another. You're not supposed to use all of them, you're supposed to sign your allegiance to one and ignore people who use the others, kinda like high school cliques in real life.
users may soon tire of social networks -- if they don't open up and embrace standards allowing greater interoperability among the different networks.
Hey, just like the IM networks. Oh, wait...
What does Slashdot think -- is data portability among social networking sites a big deal or not?
Only for people who use multiple sites and are heavy users. There are ways to consolidate things to a point. For example, one could maintain a single blog on one site and on the blogs of the other sites post a single entry linking to the true blog. I would personally not post my photographs to my MySpace page because of that stupid user agreement clause saying that News Corp owns all content you post to it. I'll post snapshots maybe but most of the stuff I would open a Flickr account to keep stuff on.
Your posting style matches the writing style used to leave threats, even using the "duck" reference. It is called deduction.
Deduction, eh? So which am I doing? Subtracting? Deducing? I have to admit, I am following deduction when it comes to logic, but that has nothing to do with threatening or ducks. Unless, you find my ability to "use reasoning to make conclusions based on a premises" threatening your ability to spread conclusions based on conjecture. [grin]
Amazing how a CEO takes credit when a company is profitable, but when something bad happens, all of a sudden they are quick pass the blame somewhere else. So much for "The buck stops here" way of thinking.
Steve Jobs's contribution to Apple's profitability is very real. Upon his return to CEO (in an interim capacity at the time) one of the first things he did was kill off old projects that were leeching money off the company. Returning focus of Apple to its core products helped conserve money while the company as a whole regrouped. Also, remember that Apple's inability to ship a major, modernizing update to the Classic Mac OS was causing loss of investor confidence and contributing to the problems at Apple. OSX is based off NeXTStep, the operating system made by NeXT, which is the company of -- Steve Jobs. Had Steve not started NeXT after being ousted from Apple originally, the new MacOS would have had to been based off BeOS. The earlier statement by me that Steve was greatly responsible for Apple's turnaround was my own opinion, not Steve's inflated ego.
It seems you suggest a career as a parent I wonder how much that pays you?
Uh, no. If you'd really read my post, and TFA the summary is for, you'd see I suggested more people try the job of a parent on a trial basis before they decide to take on the responsibility permanently. I think many people have kids without considering how big a job it really is. Also, not to sound corny here, but I'm sure many people with children would tell you that being a parent is very rewarding and pays them immensely, though not in dollars. The fact you would only think about the rewards of a career in a paycheck perspective also shows you probably are fairly young.
You seem to talk about applying for supermarkets for a career.
Once again, your statement has no basis in reality. The original Ask Slashdot poster was upset they could not fill out the job application on paper and the provided kiosk was having hardware issues. Rather than do even cursory research on other ways of applying, the submitter came to this website to play the U.S. classic "victim" thinking of calling a lawyer. The application was available online and the submitter could have filled it out from the comfort of their own armchair, had they bothered to look. I never made any statement about grocery stores as career choices.
Apparently you want children to be more responsible just not adults like you and Apple Execs, if you actually are an adult.
There is nothing wrong with wanting children to be more responsible. Children will fall down, get hurt, have problems in their lives. The 'culture of fear' perpetrated by the media (and to a lesser extent) the government, create the idea in parents heads that their children are constantly in danger. This combined with heightened competition in school and the job market and the desire for parents to see their children have a smooth journey while growing up leads them to be overprotective and intercede more often in the course of their lives than they should.
They don't want to see their children fail or get hurt, but their efforts ultimately hamper their child's ability to learn to deal with these situations on their own. Children grow to be adults, and mom and dad wont be their forever. What will they do when they get o
I never said he was guilty, I only said I wondered why he needed lawyers in this case and asked if he had something to hide. Asking a question is not the same as saying someone is guilty. It is you who are making false assumptions.
Actually, asking a question is certainly a way of making accusations. It's been used as past tactic by the mass media and political campaigns. You original question was "Why does Steve Jobs need an army of lawyers if he didn't do anything wrong?" Your questions poses the idea that there is no reason to have a lawyer unless one is guilty. Therefore, an individual needing "an army of lawyers" must be guilty of something. You're making the same stupid technicality arguments a politician in a smear campaign does. You expected your reader to read between the lines and now someone's called you out on it. Then, when I quickly pointed out your error in exaggerating the size of Jobs's counsel you tried to change it into an "are we talking about Steve Jobs or Steve Jobs and Apple combined?" argument.
I was a programmer/analysis for the law firm. Thanks for asking. I made more money in one year than you would even see in three years.
Really? Tell me, how much money did I make in the last three years? You must know the answer to be able to compare our salaries. Since you don't know anything about me, your statement can be nothing more than a gross assumption.
I worked on projects that you don't even have any hopes of understanding how they work.
Once, again. ASSUMPTION! Even worse, you make this assumption on a forum frequented by many programmers. I'm sure a large proportion of the community on Slashdot would understand how your projects work.
I graduated with a bachelors of science with a 3.91 GPA, and I'll bet you never even got past a C average.
Given how accurate your predictions were for Apple's stock issues, perhaps you should rethink any future wagers.
So you admit to trolling my old blog site? I guess those death threats and messages telling me to kill myself came from you then? I don't die so easily, you know.
I never admitted to 'trolling' any of your damn blogs. Do you have a statement by me where I said I did? I can read a website without writing inflammatory or threatening statements on it, which is more that you can say, and I'm sure many of the "Linux Sociopaths" here would agree.
You completely ignored that the document was falsified,
I have not made any pronouncements regarding the validity of the document. Feel free to quote the relevant potion of my reply where I state that no false documents have been submitted by Apple to the SEC.
Apple is trying to protect Jobs, and by your faulty logic Jobs is innocent because if you ignore the falsified document and that the iCEO is responsible for everything the company does...
A CEO is not solely responsible for everything a company does. I also have not stated what my feelings are to Jobs guilt in the matter. You, however, have made the assumption he is guilty based solely on the fact he has sought personal representation in the matter.
Apple is trying to protect Jobs... wow, who'd have thought a company would try to protect leadership that has played a great role in the company's success.
and every other piece of evidence...
What other evidence would that be? Besides a falsified stock options statement do you have any other evidence you can link to, evidence relevant to this particular case?
yes there is nothing to show that Jobs could have possibly done anything wrong.
The stock options for Apple are administered by an independent panel. Not Apple's board itself. Steve Jobs was not directly involved with the document itself. It appears from recent reports the problem is the Apple Board meeting where Jobs was granted the options never actually occurred and were made up on paper.
I am not 16 years-old by the way, and I used to work for a law firm, and I know what slime they used to protect because they were corporate lawyers who represented companies like Apple.
Whatever. A statement I have no way of verifying. What you are on the internet is what you write and portray yourself as. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...
Oh, I see Apple came out with their delayed 10Q for second quarter 2006 and their 10K. They have released a statement about the stock options scandal. Need to shave $84 million off their profits statements for the years going back to 1997 (that's $84 million total for all those years combined). $4 mil for the 2006 year, $7 mil for 2005, during which time they made over a billion in profits each of those years. So you were right after all, Apple was about 1% less profitable as they have been telling us, for those two years anyway. OMG! I'd better sell all my Apple stock! They are so doooomed!
Didn't you read my profile? I am a terrorist-serial-killer from 4096 AD because I was a space pirate ninja who traveled back in time.
You expect me to believe you used to work at a law firm after making a statement like that? What position did you hold? Janitor?
Didn't you also notice that those who argue with me and call me names end up vanishing off of the Internet?
The only person who seems to disappear is YOU in disgrace, running off with you tail between your legs to a new blog site after being too much harassment at your old one, kinda like a garden-variety forums troll.
Never a body to be found, because I possibly am a cannibal and ate the body? That I am also very smart and can hide evidence and nobody can catch me? You still want to argue with me and call me names after all of that is revealed? Maybe I'm just bullshitting with you, then again maybe not?
Not all providers will grant a new IP lease just because you drop your connection. At the company I work for (cableco) the IP leases run 7-10 days. Disconnecting all your equipment and reconnecting will net you the exact same IP unless you change your MAC address. Few people know how the system works and have the technical knowledge to change the MAC on thier routers and aren't willing to bypass the router either, which would get them what they want. I have actually fielded calls from people who want their IP address changed for reasons they don't want to give. Some have said they are being hacked by someone, some say they are having "trouble" with some people on IRC, ect.
I've never run a message board myself, but I've been on enough of them to know that banning does work. Many forums require a valid email address to become a member, which they test with a Welcoming email. A repeat offender could have his account revoked and the staff could ban new registrations by anyone with that email address (this is where Yahoo's conflict of interest comes in). Since registering on the forums again would require the troll to register for a new email account somewhere, it becomes more work. Getting a new email account isn't hard, but throwing such little bureaucratic roadblocks in the way of a troll can be all it takes to make them get frustrated and go home.
This is why I think the Yahoo message boards being taken taken so far in advance of their replacement showing up is entirely deliberate. Take the trolls' toys away from them for awhile. They get bored and go somewhere else, and don't even notice when the new toys come in. This will pretty much "reset the clock" on Yahoo's message boards, so even if they don't do anything different, they'll have a little time before things go back to how they were before.
Yahoo's message boards need moderating, and that will require money be spent on them Yahoo probably does not want to spend. But if they don't, the boards will disintegrate to a point that they are used in ways that promote crime and that will attract really bad PR for Yahoo and maybe the attention of law enforcement. Yahoo isn't responsible for what people post, but if people begin human trafficking or terrorist plotting through Yahoo's boards and Yahoo does nothing they could really get ripped a new one by the Dept. of Homeland Security. If this sounds like a stretch to you, keep in mind they were already at the point where explicit postings and hate speech were freely tolerated.
Michael Richards, high on drugs, screaming "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER I HATE NIGGERS" over and over again for hours and hours. Add to that an evangelic Christian screaming "FIND CHRIST" at the top of his lungs, once every 45 minutes precisely. Finally, imagine an overweight 40-year old divorced mother crying and saying "why is everybody so mean".
You forgot about half the posts asking "Why do Libs hate [victim in news story]?" and after someone starts ranting about "Niggers" there's always someone who chimes in about how much their wife loves nigger cock. Oh and 25% of all posts will be typed in all caps, especially the titles so they catch your eye in the message list.
I remember the news stories about Hurricane Katrina where most of the comments were trying to blame the Democrats or the Republicans for what was in reality a weather phenomenon.
The problem isn't that Yahoo's boards "allow a vocal minority to dominate the conversation" it's that anybody with a Yahoo account can participate and everyone can post as many times as they want, and comments are not moderated at all. So the unemployed jackass can dominate a conversation simply by his ability to sit in front of his computer all day and type what he wants.
If Yahoo actually policed its forums at all and (here's where they fell down) booted users they would have far less issues. There is no policing of the forums at all, and everyone knows it. That's why people do what they want. Yahoo I imagine is not willing to ban people by IP or otherwise because they want those users to stay and keep using Yahoo's other services. I have seen quite a few rumblings on those boards (which I do read/post on sometimes for cheap entertainment value) about people who complain about abusive users or the state of disorganization and their complaints are erased by Yahoo's staff. Yahoo seems to be encouraging the flame wars the same way a supermarket tabloid publishes thinly veiled lies about celebrities and sensationalize everything.
AT&T: Kathy A. Ball, Program Manager, kball@att.com, 443-259-8100 AT&T Government Solutions: John C. Nagengast, Director, Business Development, nagengast@att.com , 443-259-8366
Wonder if the NSA wrote them a letter of recommendation.
My car was searched, my phone lines are tapped, and I do own a gun, yet I never hired a lawyer to protect myself and I never did anything wrong.
You didn't answer any of the questions. This is your logic. And according to it you must be a terrorist-serial-killer with a side job as a drug runner. After all, comrade, the police don't pull over innocent citizens to search their cars!
Orion Blastar is a nickname and it is tied to my real name via paper trails and even things on the Internet.
Yeah, I checked out some of your other sites on the internet. And from them I'm getting the distinct idea you're about 16. So you're too young to legally own a gun.
Usually one hires a lawyer after they get sued or charged with a crime. So what is Jobs being sued over and what crime is he charged with? Can't answer that? Maybe you are the one with FUD here?
How does my inability to answer a question spread fear, uncertainty, or doubt about Steve Jobs? Do you even know what FUD is?
Steve Jobs may have one lawyer speaking for him right now, but Jobs and Apple have an army of lawyers on retainer.
Please remember that "Steve Jobs" and "Apple Computer, Inc." are separate entities. Therefore I was correct. "Steve Jobs" does not have an army of lawyers, as you stated.
I know that because they used them to sue the Bejesus out of Microsoft, and they used them to defend them from a Xerox lawsuit.
You're basing an assumption Apple has lawyers on retainer on two events that occured, what, ten years apart? I'm not disputing that Apple has lawyers on retainer but to base this on just these two cases is dumb.
Are you saying that Jobs and Apple only have one lawyer on retainer that handles everything for them?
No, you're just putting words in my mouth now. I have only stated so far that Steve Jobs has seeked the counsel of a single lawyer, not "an army" of them. I am sure Apple Computer has multiple lawyers, though. Also, Jobs just recently sought the services of this lawyer, as TFA says. So the lawyer is certainly not on retainer. I'll link that since you don't seem to know what the phrase means.
What FUD are you spreading now?
Once again, your accusation does not fit anything I have said. Your original post suggested the only reason Jobs would need a lawyer is because he was guilty, creating fear he might be in legal trouble. Then, you suggested that if some financial documents were falsified that others maybe too, this created uncertainty into the accounting of Apple Computer as a whole. Then you compared Apple Computer to a famous example of a corrupt corporation, trying to make people doubt whether Apple computer really had turned their fortunes around as it looked like they had on paper these last six years. The only one who has spreading FUD here is you.
Gee, Apple gave more money to executives than they should have, now where do you suppose that money came from
The money came from stock options. There's no "extra money being given to executives" to hide. What we are seeing here is what is known as a "Long Call" scenario for Stock Options. The date the stock options are granted the price is frozen so to speak at those levels. So later on, after the price has risen a considerable amount the executive can buy a bunch of stock at it's original, lower price, and reap a huge profit. It appears what happened here was the date of option granting was changed so it appears the share price was lower than what it actually was when they were granted. Any actual money would have come from selling the stock after buying it
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but he also died a few days after eating Instant Ramen with workers at a Nissin plant.
I would have to say I saw quite a few options to spend less when I bought my Dell.
The machine came with a 52x CD-ROM, and there was an offer for a free CD burner in the second bay, but I was also given the opportunity to decline the burner and drop $40 off the system price (which I did). I also downgraded the video card, cut the RAM to 128MB (which worked fine for me in the beginning, and by the time I really felt I needed more RAM the prices had dropped). I also didn't take the monitor (-$90) and bought a much nicer one on my own, downgraded the included speakers from the 2.1 setup to plain desktop speakers, and downgraded the multimedia keyboard and optical mouse to a basic keyboard and mouse with a ball. The only upgrade I made was substituting the Celeron processor for a full P4.
But then I did buy it four years ago, maybe things have changed.
I think the fact a client is not required to use the service is one of its strengths. You can download new tracks for yourself anywhere you can get internet access and the ability to save them to a local disc. They allow two songs to download simultaneously at a time so it should be possible to configure any download manager to work under these restrictions.
I work for an outsourcing support company. The ISP/Cableco who was our client shall remain nameless, but here's what happened: They transitioned to a completely new billing system and whoever sold it to them had assured them the record would transition seamlessly from the old system, but they didn't. A percentage (forgot how many) of customer records had been goofed up in the transition. To fix this the home office needed copies of certain screens (about five different ones for each account) from the old billing system, so they knew what values to type in by hand on the new system.
They didn't have the time at the office to look up all these records themselves. Their solution was for us, the company providing customer support, to (I'm not making this up) take screen captures of the needed screens on the old billing system, print them out, and fax them to the home office halfway across the country. This faxing had to be done after normal business hours as our machine had to be free for other use during the day. Anyway, to give you an idea how much paper this was wasting, we were measuring usage by the ream, not the sheet. All of this paper was being fed through an autofeed on the fax/copier that would occasionally jam up, too. I volunteered for this assignment for the overtime.
Anyway, things were moving slowly and bugging from the fax/copier hiccups (this was a 30,000 page/month duty cycle copier that was used at closer to 50,000 pages according to HR) at about 2:00am I came up with a better idea, why are we printing these out and wasting all this paper when we can send them the screen shots themselves? I was noticing the readability was quite poor from some samples we sent back and forth with the other side. So we pasted the screen shots into Word documents, and then we tried to send the enormous Word documents over email, but the company's email server was complaining about the attachment size.
Well a co-worker had a GMail account he had been playing around with (this is when GMail was brand new, so he had gotten an invite for it) so we decided to try it because of the 10MB attachment limit. We could just upload the files and give the other side the log-in info and they could download the attachments at their leisure. Well, that didn't work out either, I think some of the files may have been too big or there was an issue getting the files uploaded, I don't remember anymore. But it didn't work out.
My next idea was to go back to faxing, but paperless. There was one workstation that had a dial-up modem instead of a NIC card, it was normally used to test access numbers for dial-up ISPs clients we had, but we hadn't used it in so long we didn't remember the login name to get into it, the password we were pretty sure of. After trying to guess it for a couple minutes I got the idea of booting the machine using a Knoppix CD and looking in C:\Documents and Settings\ to see what user folders were there (as I'd spot the correct login name amongst them). After we got logged into the machine we used a flash drive to transfer the files from the other machines we had been using to compile the Word screen shot documents. Then we'd open a document and fax it using Windows XP's built-in fax capabilities to the fax machine at the home office. So soon we had an over 50 page Word file printing over fax to the east coast with several more just like it queued up. It was moving slow but seemed to be working. The idea was we could now leave and let the machine fax the rest of the night.
I was excused to go home about 4am. I came in the next day around 1:30pm and found the fax calls had been interrupted around nine that morning. Apparently the home office had called because the same page was repeating over and over again on their side (which they naturally claimed must be an issue from our end). I didn't hear how they finished getting the records transmitted, but I think they went back to paper faxing again.
Now that I think about this, It would have probably been a better idea (if we'd had more than one day to do this) to just to take the huge Word documents and burn them to a CD and then Overnight the CD to the home office.
I hope they laminated it.
I, for one, welcome our kid-friendly, brightly colored robotic overlords!
Wait, why do you have to pay and extra 50 if you have a 100GB bandwidth cap? Wouldn't that only apply if you're already used up all the 100GB you were alloted?
So all those posts of mine you linked in your last reply, they were relevant to the stock options issues at Apple how? This conversation was taken off-topic long before this, by you. Probably about this point where you called me a Neanderthal.
All of which would have been scrutinized as part of Apple's own internal investigation and the SEC's. There is no conspiracy theory here.
I'm sorry, you are incorrect. Steve Jobs does not sign off on his own stock options. The board of directors approves those motions and in Apple's case, an independent panel also makes decisions about compensation.
I'm pretty sure the CFO is more directly responsible for the books than the CEO. And in the Apple stock options case, that person is being held accountable for quite a bit of this.
CEOs cannot be responsible for every little aspect of the company's running, that's why they have their subordinate executives. This isn't like a ship in the Queen's navy where the captain is directly responsible for all actions of the crew. I bring that up as you reminded me of a major plot point of Star Trek VI.
Now you're creating a false dichotomy, a common logical flaw.
There are several lawsuits pending over the stock options scandal and they were all targeting Steve Jobs, now almost all of them have been amended to list Apple Computer, Inc as the defendant instead. This topic is a dead horse. The investigation is over, Steve Jobs has been cleared of wrongdoing. You can go back to squirting people with your Zune now.
Duh. The point is the sites are in competition with one another. You're not supposed to use all of them, you're supposed to sign your allegiance to one and ignore people who use the others, kinda like high school cliques in real life.
Hey, just like the IM networks. Oh, wait...
Only for people who use multiple sites and are heavy users. There are ways to consolidate things to a point. For example, one could maintain a single blog on one site and on the blogs of the other sites post a single entry linking to the true blog. I would personally not post my photographs to my MySpace page because of that stupid user agreement clause saying that News Corp owns all content you post to it. I'll post snapshots maybe but most of the stuff I would open a Flickr account to keep stuff on.
Deduction, eh? So which am I doing? Subtracting? Deducing? I have to admit, I am following deduction when it comes to logic, but that has nothing to do with threatening or ducks. Unless, you find my ability to "use reasoning to make conclusions based on a premises" threatening your ability to spread conclusions based on conjecture. [grin]
Steve Jobs's contribution to Apple's profitability is very real. Upon his return to CEO (in an interim capacity at the time) one of the first things he did was kill off old projects that were leeching money off the company. Returning focus of Apple to its core products helped conserve money while the company as a whole regrouped. Also, remember that Apple's inability to ship a major, modernizing update to the Classic Mac OS was causing loss of investor confidence and contributing to the problems at Apple. OSX is based off NeXTStep, the operating system made by NeXT, which is the company of -- Steve Jobs. Had Steve not started NeXT after being ousted from Apple originally, the new MacOS would have had to been based off BeOS. The earlier statement by me that Steve was greatly responsible for Apple's turnaround was my own opinion, not Steve's inflated ego.
Uh, no. If you'd really read my post, and TFA the summary is for, you'd see I suggested more people try the job of a parent on a trial basis before they decide to take on the responsibility permanently. I think many people have kids without considering how big a job it really is. Also, not to sound corny here, but I'm sure many people with children would tell you that being a parent is very rewarding and pays them immensely, though not in dollars. The fact you would only think about the rewards of a career in a paycheck perspective also shows you probably are fairly young.
Once again, your statement has no basis in reality. The original Ask Slashdot poster was upset they could not fill out the job application on paper and the provided kiosk was having hardware issues. Rather than do even cursory research on other ways of applying, the submitter came to this website to play the U.S. classic "victim" thinking of calling a lawyer. The application was available online and the submitter could have filled it out from the comfort of their own armchair, had they bothered to look. I never made any statement about grocery stores as career choices.
There is nothing wrong with wanting children to be more responsible. Children will fall down, get hurt, have problems in their lives. The 'culture of fear' perpetrated by the media (and to a lesser extent) the government, create the idea in parents heads that their children are constantly in danger. This combined with heightened competition in school and the job market and the desire for parents to see their children have a smooth journey while growing up leads them to be overprotective and intercede more often in the course of their lives than they should.
They don't want to see their children fail or get hurt, but their efforts ultimately hamper their child's ability to learn to deal with these situations on their own. Children grow to be adults, and mom and dad wont be their forever. What will they do when they get o
Correlation does not equal causation.
So you mean we have to wait 25 years to find out what really happened with the NSA wiretapping?
Wow, that didn't take long!
You've heard of goats at the Frat party, here's pigs to take to the rave!
Format
Or
Reinstall
Daily
Actually, asking a question is certainly a way of making accusations. It's been used as past tactic by the mass media and political campaigns. You original question was "Why does Steve Jobs need an army of lawyers if he didn't do anything wrong?" Your questions poses the idea that there is no reason to have a lawyer unless one is guilty. Therefore, an individual needing "an army of lawyers" must be guilty of something. You're making the same stupid technicality arguments a politician in a smear campaign does. You expected your reader to read between the lines and now someone's called you out on it. Then, when I quickly pointed out your error in exaggerating the size of Jobs's counsel you tried to change it into an "are we talking about Steve Jobs or Steve Jobs and Apple combined?" argument.
Really? Tell me, how much money did I make in the last three years? You must know the answer to be able to compare our salaries.
Since you don't know anything about me, your statement can be nothing more than a gross assumption.
Once, again. ASSUMPTION! Even worse, you make this assumption on a forum frequented by many programmers. I'm sure a large proportion of the community on Slashdot would understand how your projects work.
Given how accurate your predictions were for Apple's stock issues, perhaps you should rethink any future wagers.
I never admitted to 'trolling' any of your damn blogs. Do you have a statement by me where I said I did? I can read a website without writing inflammatory or threatening statements on it, which is more that you can say, and I'm sure many of the "Linux Sociopaths" here would agree.
I have not made any pronouncements regarding the validity of the document. Feel free to quote the relevant potion of my reply where I state that no false documents have been submitted by Apple to the SEC.
A CEO is not solely responsible for everything a company does. I also have not stated what my feelings are to Jobs guilt in the matter. You, however, have made the assumption he is guilty based solely on the fact he has sought personal representation in the matter.
Apple is trying to protect Jobs... wow, who'd have thought a company would try to protect leadership that has played a great role in the company's success.
What other evidence would that be? Besides a falsified stock options statement do you have any other evidence you can link to, evidence relevant to this particular case?
The stock options for Apple are administered by an independent panel. Not Apple's board itself. Steve Jobs was not directly involved with the document itself. It appears from recent reports the problem is the Apple Board meeting where Jobs was granted the options never actually occurred and were made up on paper.
Whatever. A statement I have no way of verifying. What you are on the internet is what you write and portray yourself as. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...
Oh, I see Apple came out with their delayed 10Q for second quarter 2006 and their 10K. They have released a statement about the stock options scandal. Need to shave $84 million off their profits statements for the years going back to 1997 (that's $84 million total for all those years combined). $4 mil for the 2006 year, $7 mil for 2005, during which time they made over a billion in profits each of those years. So you were right after all, Apple was about 1% less profitable as they have been telling us, for those two years anyway. OMG! I'd better sell all my Apple stock! They are so doooomed!
You expect me to believe you used to work at a law firm after making a statement like that? What position did you hold? Janitor?
The only person who seems to disappear is YOU in disgrace, running off with you tail between your legs to a new blog site after being too much harassment at your old one, kinda like a garden-variety forums troll.
quack quack quack
Not all providers will grant a new IP lease just because you drop your connection. At the company I work for (cableco) the IP leases run 7-10 days. Disconnecting all your equipment and reconnecting will net you the exact same IP unless you change your MAC address. Few people know how the system works and have the technical knowledge to change the MAC on thier routers and aren't willing to bypass the router either, which would get them what they want. I have actually fielded calls from people who want their IP address changed for reasons they don't want to give. Some have said they are being hacked by someone, some say they are having "trouble" with some people on IRC, ect.
I've never run a message board myself, but I've been on enough of them to know that banning does work. Many forums require a valid email address to become a member, which they test with a Welcoming email. A repeat offender could have his account revoked and the staff could ban new registrations by anyone with that email address (this is where Yahoo's conflict of interest comes in). Since registering on the forums again would require the troll to register for a new email account somewhere, it becomes more work. Getting a new email account isn't hard, but throwing such little bureaucratic roadblocks in the way of a troll can be all it takes to make them get frustrated and go home.
This is why I think the Yahoo message boards being taken taken so far in advance of their replacement showing up is entirely deliberate. Take the trolls' toys away from them for awhile. They get bored and go somewhere else, and don't even notice when the new toys come in. This will pretty much "reset the clock" on Yahoo's message boards, so even if they don't do anything different, they'll have a little time before things go back to how they were before.
Yahoo's message boards need moderating, and that will require money be spent on them Yahoo probably does not want to spend. But if they don't, the boards will disintegrate to a point that they are used in ways that promote crime and that will attract really bad PR for Yahoo and maybe the attention of law enforcement. Yahoo isn't responsible for what people post, but if people begin human trafficking or terrorist plotting through Yahoo's boards and Yahoo does nothing they could really get ripped a new one by the Dept. of Homeland Security. If this sounds like a stretch to you, keep in mind they were already at the point where explicit postings and hate speech were freely tolerated.
You realize you're posting about events that happened in 2005, right?
You forgot about half the posts asking "Why do Libs hate [victim in news story]?" and after someone starts ranting about "Niggers" there's always someone who chimes in about how much their wife loves nigger cock. Oh and 25% of all posts will be typed in all caps, especially the titles so they catch your eye in the message list.
I remember the news stories about Hurricane Katrina where most of the comments were trying to blame the Democrats or the Republicans for what was in reality a weather phenomenon.
The problem isn't that Yahoo's boards "allow a vocal minority to dominate the conversation" it's that anybody with a Yahoo account can participate and everyone can post as many times as they want, and comments are not moderated at all. So the unemployed jackass can dominate a conversation simply by his ability to sit in front of his computer all day and type what he wants.
If Yahoo actually policed its forums at all and (here's where they fell down) booted users they would have far less issues. There is no policing of the forums at all, and everyone knows it. That's why people do what they want. Yahoo I imagine is not willing to ban people by IP or otherwise because they want those users to stay and keep using Yahoo's other services. I have seen quite a few rumblings on those boards (which I do read/post on sometimes for cheap entertainment value) about people who complain about abusive users or the state of disorganization and their complaints are erased by Yahoo's staff. Yahoo seems to be encouraging the flame wars the same way a supermarket tabloid publishes thinly veiled lies about celebrities and sensationalize everything.
Ah, thank you. That does make more sense.
Wow, that's cheap of them. I guess part of it is the slimmer packaging really.
You didn't answer any of the questions. This is your logic. And according to it you must be a terrorist-serial-killer with a side job as a drug runner. After all, comrade, the police don't pull over innocent citizens to search their cars!
Yeah, I checked out some of your other sites on the internet. And from them I'm getting the distinct idea you're about 16. So you're too young to legally own a gun.
How does my inability to answer a question spread fear, uncertainty, or doubt about Steve Jobs? Do you even know what FUD is?
Please remember that "Steve Jobs" and "Apple Computer, Inc." are separate entities. Therefore I was correct. "Steve Jobs" does not have an army of lawyers, as you stated.
You're basing an assumption Apple has lawyers on retainer on two events that occured, what, ten years apart? I'm not disputing that Apple has lawyers on retainer but to base this on just these two cases is dumb.
No, you're just putting words in my mouth now. I have only stated so far that Steve Jobs has seeked the counsel of a single lawyer, not "an army" of them. I am sure Apple Computer has multiple lawyers, though. Also, Jobs just recently sought the services of this lawyer, as TFA says. So the lawyer is certainly not on retainer. I'll link that since you don't seem to know what the phrase means.
Once again, your accusation does not fit anything I have said. Your original post suggested the only reason Jobs would need a lawyer is because he was guilty, creating fear he might be in legal trouble. Then, you suggested that if some financial documents were falsified that others maybe too, this created uncertainty into the accounting of Apple Computer as a whole. Then you compared Apple Computer to a famous example of a corrupt corporation, trying to make people doubt whether Apple computer really had turned their fortunes around as it looked like they had on paper these last six years. The only one who has spreading FUD here is you.
The money came from stock options. There's no "extra money being given to executives" to hide. What we are seeing here is what is known as a "Long Call" scenario for Stock Options. The date the stock options are granted the price is frozen so to speak at those levels. So later on, after the price has risen a considerable amount the executive can buy a bunch of stock at it's original, lower price, and reap a huge profit. It appears what happened here was the date of option granting was changed so it appears the share price was lower than what it actually was when they were granted. Any actual money would have come from selling the stock after buying it
Every iPod includes a CD with iTunes on it.