Does it seem kind of stupid, especially for the 'security paranoid', to announce to the public that you use "at least 14 character passwords"? Seems to me you just set a lower bound and cut out 13^128 possibilities for a cracker:-p
The upgrades all feature tech that isnt brand-new, hell even Apple doesnt consider it front page news. So what makes this news? Because Apple is relatively a closed-end retailer? Dell/Gateway/HP doesnt get Slashdot headlines like this.
I am not saying Google is some animalistic beast that fights for money legally or illegally, simply that their priority is delivering returns to investors. That interpertation can be cut many different ways, including yours, if their is value in being responsible, and there is, then it falls under the main priority of a public company.
Think about it: in the long run, if Enron/Worldcom/MCI whose stocks if still existing, are performing horrible, wouldnt it have been cost effective for them in the long run to be 'responsible' instead of illegal and profiting in the short run?
I don't know what your point is, but yes, it is like I said.
Google is a company, in which shares of the company are traded publicly, a 'publicly traded company' --> public company. You are trying to split hairs over what portion founders/insiders own, but this is mearly called retaining 'creative control'. As of Jan 2005 53% of the stock is owned by insiders, and I would not call 47% a 'small tiny part of their shares'.
Google makes money by prioritising quality. Microsoft makes money by prioritising money.
As a publicly traded company, Google's priority is delivering returns to investors, just like Microsoft's, don't fool yourself for a second into believing that not to be true. What I think you are trying to say is how Google and Microsoft get to that common priority.
A company already entrenched in a saturated market (hardware/computer retailer), branching out into an even more saturated market (cell phones)? Sounds like a winning plan there.
If you click on Slashdot's math icon and look at a lot of the article's as well as a lot of other science and math articles from various sources, the nationality is usually given. This in of itself might be odd but it is not being discriminatory in this story, with this Indian fellow.
arguably one of the most important companies in the world
I guess this is where the arguably comes in....Google is great and all but...one of the most important companies? In the grand grand scheme of things I would say that it is barely even relevant. Sit back and think about any company that is researching an AIDS cure/vaccine, cancer treatment, any kind of any disorder - Alzheimer's, parkinson's, multiple sclerosis...and depending on how you cut 'company' I would hazzard a bet to say that any non-profit company is more important/relevant than Google...
Keep perspective people, at least quantify your statement with "most important tech companies" and then you have a more sane argument. Google is just a good company.
I see a lot of "jokes" being tossed about in relation to MTV rarely being about music, Xbox debuting is an example of this etc. however need I not remind you that this is not unique to MTV, for example CBS rarely broadcasts about Colombia.
I am not a Star Wars fan/follower/nerd, but holy crap, George Lucas managed to squeeze a prequel of the prequel Episode 1??!!?! Wow, whoever thought to to make fraction based movies.
I think it is safe to say it is a wash. If you kept servers cooler, then you wouldnt need the room to necessarily be as cool, so it is just a shift in energy consumption one way. If you kept the room cooler, the ambient temperature would need to be much cooler to have the same affects of cooling directly on the server, so it is a shift in power consumption the other way.
I think the meta April Fool's joke is the slashdot editors posting as many fake news stories as they can and watching slashdotters getting *so* pissed and complaining on every post.
Heh, if you look on Slashdot's main page, you see three Google stories: one about not real news (fake), one about a new service and one about Google expanding within an existing service.
The "need for more TLDs" reminds me of an old SNL fake commercial:
[Scene of father helping son ride a bicycle for the first time, then, cut to the living room of their house]
Father: Trust, an important part of building a family, and an important part of building his future. That's why I rely on Dillon/Edwards and Company. For nearly a century, investors on Wall Street have trusted Dillon and Edwards with their financial future. And now all of the resources from America's oldest investment firm are available on-line. [Father is at the computer as the website appears, along with web address] Dillon and Edwards on the Internet, at www.clownpenis.fart. A lot of investment companies rushed onto the Internet, but Dillon and Edwards took their time. Sure, when they were ready, there was one web address left, but it's one you can count on.
Gah!
Why is it anytime the 'history' of the Internet is brought up someone ALWAYS goes for the cheap Al Gore laugh! http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm Read.
You are a victim of spin. I have a question: When George Bush refers to anything with 'we', such as "we invaded Iraq" should he be lambasted because he didn't technically invade anything?
Slashdot Mirror
Does it seem kind of stupid, especially for the 'security paranoid', to announce to the public that you use "at least 14 character passwords"? Seems to me you just set a lower bound and cut out 13^128 possibilities for a cracker :-p
I am an Apple fan, but it makes me wonder...
The upgrades all feature tech that isnt brand-new, hell even Apple doesnt consider it front page news.
So what makes this news? Because Apple is relatively a closed-end retailer?
Dell/Gateway/HP doesnt get Slashdot headlines like this.
Could you ever use AIM's direct connect function with GAIM? I never could. Even send/receive file was a little spotty.
Yes exactly.
I am not saying Google is some animalistic beast that fights for money legally or illegally, simply that their priority is delivering returns to investors. That interpertation can be cut many different ways, including yours, if their is value in being responsible, and there is, then it falls under the main priority of a public company.
Think about it: in the long run, if Enron/Worldcom/MCI whose stocks if still existing, are performing horrible, wouldnt it have been cost effective for them in the long run to be 'responsible' instead of illegal and profiting in the short run?
I don't know what your point is, but yes, it is like I said.
Google is a company, in which shares of the company are traded publicly, a 'publicly traded company' --> public company. You are trying to split hairs over what portion founders/insiders own, but this is mearly called retaining 'creative control'.
As of Jan 2005 53% of the stock is owned by insiders, and I would not call 47% a 'small tiny part of their shares'.
Google makes money by prioritising quality. Microsoft makes money by prioritising money.
As a publicly traded company, Google's priority is delivering returns to investors, just like Microsoft's, don't fool yourself for a second into believing that not to be true. What I think you are trying to say is how Google and Microsoft get to that common priority.
A company already entrenched in a saturated market (hardware/computer retailer), branching out into an even more saturated market (cell phones)? Sounds like a winning plan there.
If you click on Slashdot's math icon and look at a lot of the article's as well as a lot of other science and math articles from various sources, the nationality is usually given. This in of itself might be odd but it is not being discriminatory in this story, with this Indian fellow.
arguably one of the most important companies in the world
I guess this is where the arguably comes in....Google is great and all but...one of the most important companies? In the grand grand scheme of things I would say that it is barely even relevant. Sit back and think about any company that is researching an AIDS cure/vaccine, cancer treatment, any kind of any disorder - Alzheimer's, parkinson's, multiple sclerosis...and depending on how you cut 'company' I would hazzard a bet to say that any non-profit company is more important/relevant than Google...
Keep perspective people, at least quantify your statement with "most important tech companies" and then you have a more sane argument. Google is just a good company.
I think that the disclosure of information at Enron, Worldcom etc. didnt deal with trade secrets, but with whistle blowing corruption rather.
I think phrases such as "And people in Hell want ice water" were invented for such responses to something like this.
Sunday he wins the Masters Golf Tournament and already they are naming an OS release in his honor after him!
You know what they say...every 18 months our technological development increases 150x .....errr something....
I see a lot of "jokes" being tossed about in relation to MTV rarely being about music, Xbox debuting is an example of this etc. however need I not remind you that this is not unique to MTV, for example CBS rarely broadcasts about Colombia.
Because competition drives prices low, even if that competition is government sponsored?
I saw Episodes 1/2...
I am not a Star Wars fan/follower/nerd, but holy crap, George Lucas managed to squeeze a prequel of the prequel Episode 1??!!?!
Wow, whoever thought to to make fraction based movies.
I think it is safe to say it is a wash.
If you kept servers cooler, then you wouldnt need the room to necessarily be as cool, so it is just a shift in energy consumption one way.
If you kept the room cooler, the ambient temperature would need to be much cooler to have the same affects of cooling directly on the server, so it is a shift in power consumption the other way.
If the turnover rate of information is 40+ years (From the moon landing till now) I think we might have a slight latency gap of informaiton flow.
Also, with these particles getting caught in the lungs, isnt the whole "lack of oxygen on the moon" probably, a bigger breathing threat?
This just in: glass is half empty, more at 11.
Is it possible to mod the entire Slashdot website, the entire day, as -2 Redundant?
I think the meta April Fool's joke is the slashdot editors posting as many fake news stories as they can and watching slashdotters getting *so* pissed and complaining on every post.
Heh, if you look on Slashdot's main page, you see three Google stories:
;)
one about not real news (fake), one about a new service and one about Google expanding within an existing service.
I would say that is a typical Slashdot day
You are being blurred out because you are DOING something obscene....duh.
The "need for more TLDs" reminds me of an old SNL fake commercial:
...clownpenis.fart.
...clownpenis.fart.
...clownpenis.fart.
...at www.clownpenis.fart.
[Scene of father helping son ride a bicycle for the first time, then, cut to the living room of their house]
Father: Trust, an important part of building a family, and an important part of building his future. That's why I rely on Dillon/Edwards and Company. For nearly a century, investors on Wall Street have trusted Dillon and Edwards with their financial future. And now all of the resources from America's oldest investment firm are available on-line. [Father is at the computer as the website appears, along with web address] Dillon and Edwards on the Internet, at www.clownpenis.fart. A lot of investment companies rushed onto the Internet, but Dillon and Edwards took their time. Sure, when they were ready, there was one web address left, but it's one you can count on.
Announcer #1: For mutual funds, count on...
Announcer #2:
Announcer #1: Online brokerage...
Announcer #2:
Announcer #1: Retirement and tuition planning...
Announcer #2:
[Caption: Dillon/Edwards Investments-www.clownpenis.fart]
Announcer #1: Dillon and Edwards Investments...
Announcer #2:
Gah!
Why is it anytime the 'history' of the Internet is brought up someone ALWAYS goes for the cheap Al Gore laugh!
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm Read.
You are a victim of spin. I have a question: When George Bush refers to anything with 'we', such as "we invaded Iraq" should he be lambasted because he didn't technically invade anything?