Duh. Two technologies, one free, the other having outrageous royalties... which would you pick? This proves that one does not have to be a genius to run a company.... And that royalties on technology is bad, m'kay?
And if that's the case, no company would have had to collude in any way to keep Rambus down - each company would make that (rather easy) decision for itself. However, if Rambus is correct, and they do have a paper trail that suggests companies acted in concert, then (as much as it disgusts me to say this) they may have a case.
I'm playing a substantial portion of devil's advocate here, since the story's still thin on facts, but it's not completely farfetched.
When will the music companies realise that $1 per track is far too expensive, and their profits would probably increase if they acutally decreased the prices. And they'd have much happier customers as a result.
Parents won't increase your allowance? Seriously, how poor are you that you can't spare a fucking dollar?
You see a lot of panicy stuff about how dangerous
all that electrical energy in the batteries is,
but when it comes down to it if the car has the
same range as a similar normal car then there is
exactly the same amount of energy in the batteries
as there would normally be in a car's fuel tank.
There are two problems with the above: it neglects the rate of energy transfer and the barrier to it. With a gasoline engine, both are reasonably high unless someone's walking around with matches, and emergency crews are smart enough not to smoke. The risk of shock is higher than detonation.
Also, there's no analogous concept of capacitance for gasoline. However, if the wrong cable gets severed, your ass is fried with an electric. Also, because stored electrical energy is less obvious than a puddle of gasoline, it's harder to avoid.
So there's about 5 reasons why one need fear hybrids in a crash more than regular cars
They're getting better with X, but copy/paste should work (better) between regular and X11 terminals - among other X11 issues. Also, as another poster mentioned, panther seemed a step back in stability from Jag. How about a better battery monitor that allows for monitoring charging capacity over time to check its health? A useful clock? An equalizer for sound output?
I realize there are 3rd party for some of these things, but 3rd party doesn't usually integrate as well.
Not selfish at all. Unlike you, I dont make the assumption that advertising is necessary. Also, I dispute that it is "free". It has a cost - your time (in the case of TV), or your attention in other cases.
Again, so don't use it. I'd rather spend a few seconds of my time - or ignore ads - than subscribe. Otherwise, ads are most certainly necessary, if one doesn't want to pay for content, which seems to define the majority of people given the other responses.
I am annoyed at being called selfish, when at the end of the day the only thing speaking is your pre-assumptions. Also, I didn't notice me actually screwing with any advertisers. I don't even use an ad blocker, and I stated that actually do pay for services.
The "selfish" bit was your desire that the ad-based systems die, when they satisfy the needs of the vast majority.
Hm. It seems I do not have this ability. Any motion draws my eye. I feel obligated to absorb everything about me. Adverts are a cancer growing on my existence. I dispise them with all my soul, because I have to consciously ignore them, and it degrades the quality of my existence.
Then you have the right to pay for all forms of commercial-free media. Don't use free wi-fi. Make sure you only frequent establishments that will allow you to pay for their services.
I think that advertising is slowly losing ground as a way to inflict pain on people in the name of commerce. I live in the hope that it dies the ugly death it deserves (though I know my hope is very probably a dream).
Damned selfish attitude. Don't screw up the free party for those of us who actually have the ability to focus.
And once they know you're ignoring the, they'll make them flash pop-overs, etc until you're so angry you ALMOST won't use their service. Squeeze every last cent they can from you. Yay capitalism.
And if they profit gouge and annoy the customer, someone else will come along offering less obtrusive ads while still making money, stealing all of the original company's business, making everyone more happy except the original assholes. Yay capitalism...really!
No. No. No. This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Fiduciary responsibility does not equal make the biggest, quickest buck possible.
If the "quick" part is the kicker, then I agree. Making quick money and making a strong company can be mutually exclusive. Hey, that's what boards get for giving CEOs lots of short-term options, though. They should make the bastards wait 10 years before full vestment.
Take Ben & Jerry's back in the good ole days...buying milk only from family-owned farms. They paid a pretty penny, and could have lowered costs if they bought from a large dairy conglomerate. Are you suggesting this was illegal?
No, that's part of their image that also allows them to charge 3x what they otherwise would have.
Companies aren't there to solely to exist as 'damn the torpedos, full steam ahead' amoral corporatist whores. They often act that way, but there has never been a mandate that businesses must do that.
CEO's are there to act in the best interests of the company. If they can do something else in the meantime, great. But they're not obligated.
Just because the government is there to clean up the shit left behind does not mean you (or your business) should just feel free to crap everywhere.
That argument makes more sense for something like environmental pollution. But it is simply NOT a company's responsibility to sustain a welfare state. Asking an international company to keep jobs in one country, paying less educated employees 10x as much, doesn't make sense for anyone.
Businesses should be required to fix problems that they create. But governments are trying to make them fix problems they DIDN'T create, because they think they can. And when governments jack around with businesses too much, they leave. And people act surprised.
I hate this unfortunately pervasive attitude. The point of a company/CEO/board is not, and should not be to make as much money as quick as possible, at any cost to anyone. Morality ought to be a consideration in business decisions. Why do so many people seem to think that companies should be faceless money-grubbing automatons? That makes me vomit in my own mouth.
p>Not only is it pervasive, it's the law and called fiduciary responsibility. If the CEO does anything not in the financial best interest of the company, the company can be sued by the shareholders. That's what companies are for. Governments are supposed to solve your social problems, don't look to companies, as it isn't their job.
Slashdot Mirror
And if that's the case, no company would have had to collude in any way to keep Rambus down - each company would make that (rather easy) decision for itself. However, if Rambus is correct, and they do have a paper trail that suggests companies acted in concert, then (as much as it disgusts me to say this) they may have a case.
I'm playing a substantial portion of devil's advocate here, since the story's still thin on facts, but it's not completely farfetched.
Nah, they surrendered when they heard a German team entered. Though that might qualify as "getting difficult."
Yes. Happy now?
When will the music companies realise that $1 per track is far too expensive, and their profits would probably increase if they acutally decreased the prices. And they'd have much happier customers as a result. Parents won't increase your allowance? Seriously, how poor are you that you can't spare a fucking dollar?
There are two problems with the above: it neglects the rate of energy transfer and the barrier to it. With a gasoline engine, both are reasonably high unless someone's walking around with matches, and emergency crews are smart enough not to smoke. The risk of shock is higher than detonation.
Also, there's no analogous concept of capacitance for gasoline. However, if the wrong cable gets severed, your ass is fried with an electric. Also, because stored electrical energy is less obvious than a puddle of gasoline, it's harder to avoid.
So there's about 5 reasons why one need fear hybrids in a crash more than regular cars
I realize there are 3rd party for some of these things, but 3rd party doesn't usually integrate as well.
Again, so don't use it. I'd rather spend a few seconds of my time - or ignore ads - than subscribe. Otherwise, ads are most certainly necessary, if one doesn't want to pay for content, which seems to define the majority of people given the other responses.
I am annoyed at being called selfish, when at the end of the day the only thing speaking is your pre-assumptions. Also, I didn't notice me actually screwing with any advertisers. I don't even use an ad blocker, and I stated that actually do pay for services.
The "selfish" bit was your desire that the ad-based systems die, when they satisfy the needs of the vast majority.
Then you have the right to pay for all forms of commercial-free media. Don't use free wi-fi. Make sure you only frequent establishments that will allow you to pay for their services.
I think that advertising is slowly losing ground as a way to inflict pain on people in the name of commerce. I live in the hope that it dies the ugly death it deserves (though I know my hope is very probably a dream).
Damned selfish attitude. Don't screw up the free party for those of us who actually have the ability to focus.
And if they profit gouge and annoy the customer, someone else will come along offering less obtrusive ads while still making money, stealing all of the original company's business, making everyone more happy except the original assholes. Yay capitalism...really!
Horseshit. At that point, a build for linux is a build for windows, because I could have used VMware.
For everyone else, putting cygwin is way too cumbersome and slow to be considered native. And yes, I have successfully got cygwin installed.
If the "quick" part is the kicker, then I agree. Making quick money and making a strong company can be mutually exclusive. Hey, that's what boards get for giving CEOs lots of short-term options, though. They should make the bastards wait 10 years before full vestment.
Take Ben & Jerry's back in the good ole days...buying milk only from family-owned farms. They paid a pretty penny, and could have lowered costs if they bought from a large dairy conglomerate. Are you suggesting this was illegal?
No, that's part of their image that also allows them to charge 3x what they otherwise would have.
Companies aren't there to solely to exist as 'damn the torpedos, full steam ahead' amoral corporatist whores. They often act that way, but there has never been a mandate that businesses must do that.
CEO's are there to act in the best interests of the company. If they can do something else in the meantime, great. But they're not obligated.
Just because the government is there to clean up the shit left behind does not mean you (or your business) should just feel free to crap everywhere.
That argument makes more sense for something like environmental pollution. But it is simply NOT a company's responsibility to sustain a welfare state. Asking an international company to keep jobs in one country, paying less educated employees 10x as much, doesn't make sense for anyone.
Businesses should be required to fix problems that they create. But governments are trying to make them fix problems they DIDN'T create, because they think they can. And when governments jack around with businesses too much, they leave. And people act surprised.
Don't choke on that vomit, there.
Phone number: (303) 550-9828(Daily Camera)
Email: scottrichter422@yahoo.com
Thanks a lot.