That's funny. The last time I checked, Google's Firefox bundle's search engine and home page shockingly enough default to... Google! Does this mean it is a "problem" as well that Google is deploying a browser with a default search engine and home page they make money off of.
(Tip: Anti-competitive does not mean failure to endorse the competition.)
Oh wait, I forgot -- there is a Borg icon on Slashdot's MS topic icon, not Google's.
We call it return on equity. If Linux had higher market share, developing applications for it would have a higher ROE. Google develops software with other people's money. Those people do not want to see their money being used to develop a product that yields a low or even negative ROE.
You can make the argument that if more apps were available for Linux, it would have higher market share. Unfortunately, not every company is (in fact very few are) interested in evangelism.
Even if Google developed for Linux and could yield the same ROE from developing for Windows, the risk of investment would be much higher while the return would not change. Ergo, it is not a sound financial decision.
(Of course there are many other methods of measuring return, but I think ROE is most significant in this case since it represents the money that the stockholders put into the company. In other words, it is the bang for their buck.)
DRM gives these celebrities a platform to attack the record companies and get more money out of them. How often do you hear about how the artists make such a small share of their own CD sales? Of course they neglect to mention that they are not the artists' CDs. The material was in fact acquired through a carefully reviewed contract between the artist and record company.
Just watch -- if they start getting larger royalties, you will see considerably less opposition to DRM out of them.
Do you content that the Diebold voting machines are programmed in a way that makes them favor Republicans over Democrats?
Actually, a government law that obligates a company to change how they do business is anti-free market. All the DMCA does is give formal protection to DRM software that precedent normally gave them anyway.
At any rate, you've been quite thoroughly convinced that copy protected music will lead a multitude of other things. Is there anything other than speculation to back any of those up, or is it just hyper-paranoia?
Well, going by editorial content, the NY Times and LA Times are very liberal. They both, however, stipulated that there was a stronger case for declaring Bush the winner than Gore. I also don't think questionable ballot punches disproportionately favored Gore over Bush. (Do Republicans punch their ballots harder?)
As for Diebold, I have no problem going with the news reports that they are lousy machines. I will not admit that they are programmed to discard votes for Democrats or in any way systematically favor Republicans.
As for DRM, I honestly don't give a shit. I am a reasonably strong supporter of a free market economy, and if some company wants to sell me music that I can't copy, then so be it. I think there can be legitimate areas where free market economics can be hampered with, but the entertainment industry is far from one. Frankly, I think these celebrities are a bunch of attention-whoring narcissists who want people to care more about this crap then they honestly should.
Every newspaper that examined the 2000 FL ballots (including the LA Times and NY Times) agreed that Bush had won. The constitutionality of the Supreme Court decision, Katherine Harris alleged conflict of interest, etc would seem to be moot points. Where was the fix?
Of course I am being sarcastic. We all know that Haliburton, at Dick Cheney's command, used stolen CIA time travel technology to go back and rig the election. That's a given.
Try a Google news search for her name. Bush is the one who has pledged to defend Taiwan from being reabsorbed into China. Don't forget about her husband's vested business interests in China, which have become considerably more lucrative since she took office.
Sorry, but overvalued it overvalued. Why Do you think that the founders are selling their shares off as fast as legally possible? The first rule of investment finance is that MNCs exist to make money for the stockholders -- mainly by increasing share value.
Although that will temporarily drive up their stock price from the index funds purchasing shares, just remember that for every company added to the index, one must be removed.
Bullshit. Many software companies have had the same technical philosophy and failed miserably. The "suits" are concerned with money -- there is a reason we call it the bottom line. Google is horrendously overvalued; its stock price is not in line with its earnings or assets. Just compare its market cap to stockholder equity.
Re:Good God
on
Google's DNA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I would not count Yahoo as a disappointment, the market just corrected for their being overvalued. The same thing will likely happen to Google. My point is, I don't think they will crash and burn like most did, but rather settle down to be on par with Yahoo.
Many people will likely lose their shirts on Google stock, but I have no sympathy for people who should've learned before how dangerous it is to look at an overvalued stock as a long-term stable investment.
This looks like an article written about the dot-com of the week in the late 90s. When all the hype dies down, Google will likely be a success like Yahoo -- solid, but not the most amazing company out there.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't UserLinux just sarge (when it was testing) pinning some sid packages? I honestly don't remember it being anything terribly more substantial than that along with some convenient metapackages like graphical-desktop-environment and enterprise-server.
When Perens announced at the Desktop Linux conference in MA a few years ago, it sounded like a pretty half-baked idea.
Correct. Just like shifts in global weather patterns, internet surveillance did not exist before the current Bush administration. It's not like the Echelon and Carnivore programs were started by Clinton.
I've met a fair share of Middle-eastern cab drivers who spoke fluent English -- of whom I would assume most spoke Arabic -- that are of above average in their support for this country and the war in Iraq. I'm sure most of them would be happy to receive the same pay as they do for cab driving to sit in an office (or at home for the matter) translating. Sweeten the deal with some type of resident visa and I am sure many of the translation difficulties would be eliminated.
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny. The last time I checked, Google's Firefox bundle's search engine and home page shockingly enough default to... Google! Does this mean it is a "problem" as well that Google is deploying a browser with a default search engine and home page they make money off of.
(Tip: Anti-competitive does not mean failure to endorse the competition.)
Oh wait, I forgot -- there is a Borg icon on Slashdot's MS topic icon, not Google's.
We call it return on equity. If Linux had higher market share, developing applications for it would have a higher ROE. Google develops software with other people's money. Those people do not want to see their money being used to develop a product that yields a low or even negative ROE.
You can make the argument that if more apps were available for Linux, it would have higher market share. Unfortunately, not every company is (in fact very few are) interested in evangelism.
Even if Google developed for Linux and could yield the same ROE from developing for Windows, the risk of investment would be much higher while the return would not change. Ergo, it is not a sound financial decision.
(Of course there are many other methods of measuring return, but I think ROE is most significant in this case since it represents the money that the stockholders put into the company. In other words, it is the bang for their buck.)
DRM gives these celebrities a platform to attack the record companies and get more money out of them. How often do you hear about how the artists make such a small share of their own CD sales? Of course they neglect to mention that they are not the artists' CDs. The material was in fact acquired through a carefully reviewed contract between the artist and record company.
Just watch -- if they start getting larger royalties, you will see considerably less opposition to DRM out of them.
Do you content that the Diebold voting machines are programmed in a way that makes them favor Republicans over Democrats?
Actually, a government law that obligates a company to change how they do business is anti-free market. All the DMCA does is give formal protection to DRM software that precedent normally gave them anyway.
At any rate, you've been quite thoroughly convinced that copy protected music will lead a multitude of other things. Is there anything other than speculation to back any of those up, or is it just hyper-paranoia?
Well, going by editorial content, the NY Times and LA Times are very liberal. They both, however, stipulated that there was a stronger case for declaring Bush the winner than Gore. I also don't think questionable ballot punches disproportionately favored Gore over Bush. (Do Republicans punch their ballots harder?)
As for Diebold, I have no problem going with the news reports that they are lousy machines. I will not admit that they are programmed to discard votes for Democrats or in any way systematically favor Republicans.
As for DRM, I honestly don't give a shit. I am a reasonably strong supporter of a free market economy, and if some company wants to sell me music that I can't copy, then so be it. I think there can be legitimate areas where free market economics can be hampered with, but the entertainment industry is far from one. Frankly, I think these celebrities are a bunch of attention-whoring narcissists who want people to care more about this crap then they honestly should.
Every newspaper that examined the 2000 FL ballots (including the LA Times and NY Times) agreed that Bush had won. The constitutionality of the Supreme Court decision, Katherine Harris alleged conflict of interest, etc would seem to be moot points. Where was the fix?
Because we all know that everyone despises President Bush. No one voted for him.
Of course I am being sarcastic. We all know that Haliburton, at Dick Cheney's command, used stolen CIA time travel technology to go back and rig the election. That's a given.
We generally don't tend to riot against the democratic process here.
Try a Google news search for her name. Bush is the one who has pledged to defend Taiwan from being reabsorbed into China. Don't forget about her husband's vested business interests in China, which have become considerably more lucrative since she took office.
Actually, Sen. Feinstein is the one sympathetic to Communist China.
Shuttleworth would certainly seem to be willing to put that kind of capital into it, yet the "bug" remains open.
Sorry, but overvalued it overvalued. Why Do you think that the founders are selling their shares off as fast as legally possible? The first rule of investment finance is that MNCs exist to make money for the stockholders -- mainly by increasing share value.
Although that will temporarily drive up their stock price from the index funds purchasing shares, just remember that for every company added to the index, one must be removed.
Bullshit. Many software companies have had the same technical philosophy and failed miserably. The "suits" are concerned with money -- there is a reason we call it the bottom line. Google is horrendously overvalued; its stock price is not in line with its earnings or assets. Just compare its market cap to stockholder equity.
I think that was basically my underlying sentiment.
Turtleneck, ponytail, and sandles with socks.
I would not count Yahoo as a disappointment, the market just corrected for their being overvalued. The same thing will likely happen to Google. My point is, I don't think they will crash and burn like most did, but rather settle down to be on par with Yahoo.
Many people will likely lose their shirts on Google stock, but I have no sympathy for people who should've learned before how dangerous it is to look at an overvalued stock as a long-term stable investment.
This looks like an article written about the dot-com of the week in the late 90s. When all the hype dies down, Google will likely be a success like Yahoo -- solid, but not the most amazing company out there.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't UserLinux just sarge (when it was testing) pinning some sid packages? I honestly don't remember it being anything terribly more substantial than that along with some convenient metapackages like graphical-desktop-environment and enterprise-server.
When Perens announced at the Desktop Linux conference in MA a few years ago, it sounded like a pretty half-baked idea.
Yeah. It just goes to tubgirl though.
Correct. Just like shifts in global weather patterns, internet surveillance did not exist before the current Bush administration. It's not like the Echelon and Carnivore programs were started by Clinton.
Personally, my family is still not socially inept enough to opt for email over the telephone for communicating news of medical emergencies.
I've met a fair share of Middle-eastern cab drivers who spoke fluent English -- of whom I would assume most spoke Arabic -- that are of above average in their support for this country and the war in Iraq. I'm sure most of them would be happy to receive the same pay as they do for cab driving to sit in an office (or at home for the matter) translating. Sweeten the deal with some type of resident visa and I am sure many of the translation difficulties would be eliminated.
Only a Slashdotter would be in bed with models and decide to watch porn.