The stock trades higher when the street thinks that the bids are too low. Nobody is going to tender their shares @ $5.75 when they can get a better price by selling at market. If the above the offer price is sustained, then either the bid will have to be increased or withdrawn. This happens all the time, and is a normal function of a stock market. The value of a company may be more or less after it is taken over - the goal of the bidder is to bid as low as possible. The goal of shareholders is to get the highest bid possible. The goal of management is to maximize shareholder value, which can involve sale, profit improvement, or a host of other things.
Fast Attack is better. At least you get into port now and again.:-) They even have email that can be sent from the sub (my son emails me from his deployments from time to time while at sea on the USS Albany).
Except that juries are empowered to be the judges of facts. Which means they can use their knowledge to make such judgments. There is no escaping this fact. Even in your example, the lawyers are relying on the jury forming opinions. Given that opinions and judgments of facts are, by their very nature, based on personal knowledge, emotions, beliefs, it's disingenuous to suggest that using knowledge of everyday physics or computers or any other thing won't figure in.
That's what voir dire is for - lawyers have a chance to exclude individuals that they think might have some prejudicial belief or knowledge. If the lawyer doesn't exclude someone, they get that person with all their knowledge, beliefs, prejudices etc.
Bottom line - juries judge facts and do so by weighing the evidence with their personal knowledge of how things work in the world, including their judgment of the truthfulness of a witness' statement or the accuracy of any evidence presented.
As a juror I get to decide the value of the evidence presented, and whether or not said evidence meets the necessary conditions for conviction (criminal) or judgment (civl). No matter what is done, this is based on my personal knowledge and opinions, including, but not limited to, my trust of a witness, my trust of a lawyer, my trust of the police, my knowledge of human nature and a host of other things.
That's the point of the jury system - the juror is empowered to make a judgment call. How the heck can you do that without using your own judgment??? I'm not talking about reading excluded evidence, but if one witness says that "water runs uphill" and another says "water runs downhill" then I can use my own knowledge of gravity to determine that the 2nd witness is more than likely telling the truth. This applies to ALL forms of knowledge that I might have, not just the laws of physics or hydrodynamics.
The principle that you are proposing would exclude a juror from doing ANYTHING at all, since everything is a judgment based on their knowledge!
Every juror gets to express their opinion. That is how it works! I am free to say that "I don't believe X is telling the truth because...." or "The government didn't prove the case because..." and say any damn thing I want!
Following your principle, there would be no deliberation, simply a vote. But that's not how it works. In other words, you are wrong.
Exactly. If by some nearly impossible set of circumstances they allowed me to sit on a jury for a trial that revolved around computers (e.g. log files, ip tracing, etc), you can be darn sure I'm going to try to explain to the jurors what's either right or wrong with what each side said. Of course, if the attorney for one side or the other is afraid of this, they'll find a way to get rid of me in voir dire.
I've had solid luck with getting items removed. When I filed in small claims court over such a thing in the past, I asked, as part of the judgment, that the court issue an order against reporting the debt AND an order removing the items. Both were granted.
You signed the damn thing without finding what remedies the other parties had against you? Oh wait, this is how we got into the whole mortgage fiasco!
Bingo! The one area where I really support regulation is full, clear disclosure. Require that, and then enforce the contracts. If people are too lazy or unconcerned to read the contract, that is NOT the fault of the other party, nor should the government come in to rescue them from their foolishness or laziness.
The key is requiring that the terms be laid out plainly and clearly. A table showing total cost of the contract (less any add-ons that you might make such as buying things with your phone, etc), the termination fees, the end date, the minutes/quantity of service and the overage charges would be a good start. And then a simple, clear paragraph stating how cancellation works, complete with phone numbers, address, etc, and exact procedure to follow.
At that point, if you sign the damn thing, you're bound by it and have only yourself to blame. caveat emptor
Unemployment and the number eventually under arms pretty much cancelled each other out at around 14 million (give or take). And unemployment was RISING during the late 30s after many of the programs had been enacted. There was a short improvement, but it didn't last. In other words, the New Deal didn't work...
One reason why our corporate policy is that we actually have to validate backups for every system on a regular basis (this means doing a full restore of a tape called from off-site), where the regularity is directly proportional to the criticality of the system. The more critical, the more often we test. On our iSeries, they restore the weekly backup tape EVERY week on the QA server - both for the purposes of refreshing it, AND to validate the backups. We also have a quarterly 'random' test where a system is chosen randomly and it must be recovered from bare metal using only our standard procedures + the backup tape.
We've discovered all kinds of strangeness with backup tapes through the years. Our Tier 1 systems have completely separate instances in geographically diverse areas, with data-replication.
Granted, this isn't cheap, but our data isn't either.
I posted the quotes. You don't like them so you demand I produce something of your liking. Run along little boy. You're out of your league. The EU, BBC and MS all agree with what I said. Your continued stamping your feet and plugging your ears is pathetic.
It backs it up 100%. I'll trust the very words of the EU, the actions of MS and the reporting of the BBC over your claims. It's clear you got caught with your pants down, and now you're holding your fingers in your ears going 'nanananana' to avoid hearing what you know to be the truth.
In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.
And the commission said MS actions may not be sufficient
The company said it would make it easy for PC makers and users to get at and install the web browsing program.
In response the European Commission expressed scepticism over the move and whether it would allay accusations of Microsoft abusing its market position.
AND, it said further
the European Commission said "it would also have to consider whether this initial step of technical separation of IE from Windows could be negated by other actions by Microsoft".
In other words, this may not be sufficient. Why? Because the issue is more than just tying - it's about ubiquity and lack of consumer choice due to lock-in. Or MS doing exactly what I said - finding a way to induce OEMs to install IE or otherwise trying to get around the ruling.
It would really help if you had a clue about this before opening your mouth to spew BS.
Read the ruling. And the commentary from the EU Commission. I know you don't LIKE it, but they don't care. MS has now said they will include the browser ballot in Windows Update! So clearly, even customers who already HAVE made a choice will have to make one again.
Let's see how this plays out. If the OEMs make IE the default, I predict confidently that the EU will take action to prevent it, and force the USER to select from a ballot.
Like it or don't like it, think it's fair, don't think it's fair, be my guest. In the end, if the default browser on a machine is IE, the EU will act to prevent it. THAT is the issue at hand.
Cloud it all you want, but the bottom line is that the EU acted to ensure CONSUMER choice in browsers. Not OEM. Not manufacturer. CONSUMER.
So I suppose your choice is to allow MS to continue what the EU has determined to be anti-competitive actions? Remember, we're dealing with a convicted monopolist here.
All of our admins use an image. We don't use the install from our vendor. Those who don't use an image could login as administrator and set the default, or use a policy
If OEMs can force a choice, what's to prevent OEMs from colluding with MS?
The EU can decide if this is OK, but if so, it can't be IE, or it presents and easy way around the ruling
If I were the OEM, I'd provide the binaries on disk for browsers
Look, the EU made the ruling - I'm talking about how to enforce it If you don't like the ruling, take it up with them
Don't have to. Just make Microsoft put it at the user creation screen which appears during setup. And prompt for every new user who is created when they first login.
You really think the EU will let this through? Where the vast majority do not have a ballot displayed? I doubt it. Much more likely that this screen will be required for all installs, including the final setup that OEM version do when you turn them on for the first time...
Slashdot Mirror
The stock trades higher when the street thinks that the bids are too low. Nobody is going to tender their shares @ $5.75 when they can get a better price by selling at market. If the above the offer price is sustained, then either the bid will have to be increased or withdrawn. This happens all the time, and is a normal function of a stock market. The value of a company may be more or less after it is taken over - the goal of the bidder is to bid as low as possible. The goal of shareholders is to get the highest bid possible. The goal of management is to maximize shareholder value, which can involve sale, profit improvement, or a host of other things.
Fast Attack is better. At least you get into port now and again. :-) They even have email that can be sent from the sub (my son emails me from his deployments from time to time while at sea on the USS Albany).
Except that juries are empowered to be the judges of facts. Which means they can use their knowledge to make such judgments. There is no escaping this fact. Even in your example, the lawyers are relying on the jury forming opinions. Given that opinions and judgments of facts are, by their very nature, based on personal knowledge, emotions, beliefs, it's disingenuous to suggest that using knowledge of everyday physics or computers or any other thing won't figure in.
That's what voir dire is for - lawyers have a chance to exclude individuals that they think might have some prejudicial belief or knowledge. If the lawyer doesn't exclude someone, they get that person with all their knowledge, beliefs, prejudices etc.
Bottom line - juries judge facts and do so by weighing the evidence with their personal knowledge of how things work in the world, including their judgment of the truthfulness of a witness' statement or the accuracy of any evidence presented.
As a juror I get to decide the value of the evidence presented, and whether or not said evidence meets the necessary conditions for conviction (criminal) or judgment (civl). No matter what is done, this is based on my personal knowledge and opinions, including, but not limited to, my trust of a witness, my trust of a lawyer, my trust of the police, my knowledge of human nature and a host of other things.
That's the point of the jury system - the juror is empowered to make a judgment call. How the heck can you do that without using your own judgment??? I'm not talking about reading excluded evidence, but if one witness says that "water runs uphill" and another says "water runs downhill" then I can use my own knowledge of gravity to determine that the 2nd witness is more than likely telling the truth. This applies to ALL forms of knowledge that I might have, not just the laws of physics or hydrodynamics.
The principle that you are proposing would exclude a juror from doing ANYTHING at all, since everything is a judgment based on their knowledge!
Every juror gets to express their opinion. That is how it works! I am free to say that "I don't believe X is telling the truth because...." or "The government didn't prove the case because..." and say any damn thing I want!
Following your principle, there would be no deliberation, simply a vote. But that's not how it works. In other words, you are wrong.
Exactly. If by some nearly impossible set of circumstances they allowed me to sit on a jury for a trial that revolved around computers (e.g. log files, ip tracing, etc), you can be darn sure I'm going to try to explain to the jurors what's either right or wrong with what each side said. Of course, if the attorney for one side or the other is afraid of this, they'll find a way to get rid of me in voir dire.
I've had solid luck with getting items removed. When I filed in small claims court over such a thing in the past, I asked, as part of the judgment, that the court issue an order against reporting the debt AND an order removing the items. Both were granted.
Adhesive contracts are pretty slimy. That's something I'd vigorously challenge - including going to small claims court...
You signed the damn thing without finding what remedies the other parties had against you? Oh wait, this is how we got into the whole mortgage fiasco!
Bingo! The one area where I really support regulation is full, clear disclosure. Require that, and then enforce the contracts. If people are too lazy or unconcerned to read the contract, that is NOT the fault of the other party, nor should the government come in to rescue them from their foolishness or laziness.
The key is requiring that the terms be laid out plainly and clearly. A table showing total cost of the contract (less any add-ons that you might make such as buying things with your phone, etc), the termination fees, the end date, the minutes/quantity of service and the overage charges would be a good start. And then a simple, clear paragraph stating how cancellation works, complete with phone numbers, address, etc, and exact procedure to follow.
At that point, if you sign the damn thing, you're bound by it and have only yourself to blame. caveat emptor
Unemployment and the number eventually under arms pretty much cancelled each other out at around 14 million (give or take). And unemployment was RISING during the late 30s after many of the programs had been enacted. There was a short improvement, but it didn't last. In other words, the New Deal didn't work...
One reason why our corporate policy is that we actually have to validate backups for every system on a regular basis (this means doing a full restore of a tape called from off-site), where the regularity is directly proportional to the criticality of the system. The more critical, the more often we test. On our iSeries, they restore the weekly backup tape EVERY week on the QA server - both for the purposes of refreshing it, AND to validate the backups. We also have a quarterly 'random' test where a system is chosen randomly and it must be recovered from bare metal using only our standard procedures + the backup tape.
We've discovered all kinds of strangeness with backup tapes through the years. Our Tier 1 systems have completely separate instances in geographically diverse areas, with data-replication.
Granted, this isn't cheap, but our data isn't either.
I posted the quotes. You don't like them so you demand I produce something of your liking. Run along little boy. You're out of your league. The EU, BBC and MS all agree with what I said. Your continued stamping your feet and plugging your ears is pathetic.
It backs it up 100%. I'll trust the very words of the EU, the actions of MS and the reporting of the BBC over your claims. It's clear you got caught with your pants down, and now you're holding your fingers in your ears going 'nanananana' to avoid hearing what you know to be the truth.
It's about the consumer:
In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.
And the commission said MS actions may not be sufficient
The company said it would make it easy for PC makers and users to get at and install the web browsing program. In response the European Commission expressed scepticism over the move and whether it would allay accusations of Microsoft abusing its market position.
AND, it said further
the European Commission said "it would also have to consider whether this initial step of technical separation of IE from Windows could be negated by other actions by Microsoft".
In other words, this may not be sufficient. Why? Because the issue is more than just tying - it's about ubiquity and lack of consumer choice due to lock-in. Or MS doing exactly what I said - finding a way to induce OEMs to install IE or otherwise trying to get around the ruling.
It would really help if you had a clue about this before opening your mouth to spew BS.
Read the ruling. And the commentary from the EU Commission. I know you don't LIKE it, but they don't care. MS has now said they will include the browser ballot in Windows Update! So clearly, even customers who already HAVE made a choice will have to make one again.
Sorry if this ruins your day, but so be it.
Let's see how this plays out. If the OEMs make IE the default, I predict confidently that the EU will take action to prevent it, and force the USER to select from a ballot.
Like it or don't like it, think it's fair, don't think it's fair, be my guest. In the end, if the default browser on a machine is IE, the EU will act to prevent it. THAT is the issue at hand.
Cloud it all you want, but the bottom line is that the EU acted to ensure CONSUMER choice in browsers. Not OEM. Not manufacturer. CONSUMER.
I'm hoping against hope that a bit of education is possible among the masses. I know, silly me. :-(
Red herring. Tell us how the EU is to enforce the ruling if the OEMs can do as they please, including only provide IE. Go on, explain it. Or go away.
It's easy to throw stones. Good job. Now, present a solution or shut up.
So I suppose your choice is to allow MS to continue what the EU has determined to be anti-competitive actions? Remember, we're dealing with a convicted monopolist here.
People can be educated. And ought to be.
Perhaps, but allowing IE to be the default mostly defeats the EU's directive and ruling
A simple, EU approved statement about browser choice would suffice to solve the 'confusion' issue for most people.
All of our admins use an image. We don't use the install from our vendor. Those who don't use an image could login as administrator and set the default, or use a policy
If OEMs can force a choice, what's to prevent OEMs from colluding with MS?
The EU can decide if this is OK, but if so, it can't be IE, or it presents and easy way around the ruling
If I were the OEM, I'd provide the binaries on disk for browsers
Look, the EU made the ruling - I'm talking about how to enforce it If you don't like the ruling, take it up with them
Don't have to. Just make Microsoft put it at the user creation screen which appears during setup. And prompt for every new user who is created when they first login.
Well, if the EU is smart, they will impose some basic rules on the ballot screen:
1) No default selection
2) Random order of displayed browser choices
3) No MS propaganda on the screen.
That should do it.
You really think the EU will let this through? Where the vast majority do not have a ballot displayed? I doubt it. Much more likely that this screen will be required for all installs, including the final setup that OEM version do when you turn them on for the first time...