"3. The shows and movies are ad-free. Don't charge me AND expect me to watch ads!"
Suckers have been paying to watch ads via cable for 20+ years. As long as these same people are willing to pay to watch ads, I don't see any reason why Hulu would do anything different.
Market cap doesn't have anything to do with the financial health of a company. Market capitalization indicates the price that people are willing to pay for shares of the company. It's completely and totally unrelated to profitability.
"in this case, the company has become a commodity"
So was Napster, and Friendster, and Myspace.
In two years, Twitter will no longer be mainstream. Facebook is already in decline, and will tank once something "better" comes along. The Twitter phenomenon isn't new... it's just the newest version of the same thing.
Twitter is adding advertisements? Say it ain't true!
I've never heard of a dot-com company before that:
1. Starts with an ungodly amount of free money from investors
2. Becomes very, very popular, all while losing many millions of dollars
3. When the investment money invariably begins to slow down, the company tries to "monetize" a money-losing idea.
4. People hop off to the newest fad, leaving this one to languish and to be used by spammers and people from the Phillipines.
5. The company is bought by some much larger company for a ridiculous amount of money.
6. The large company can't capitalize on the earlier popularity, and the brand dies.
Until China learns how to act as responsible Internet citizens, I'll continue to blackhole as many of Chinese subnets as I can find both at work and home. Spam, malware, and every kind of crap comes from China, and I don't do business with any Chinese, so it's a no-brainer.
It happens every day. Just today, people bought (and sold) 439,869 shares of SCO.
"It's not totally disconnected."
Again... dot com days? Take a look at P/E. P/E's are completely different per company. Seanergy Maritime Corp trades for only 1.16 times its earnings. American National Insurance Co trades for 193 times its earnings. Stock prices really, honestly, truly, don't have anything to do with the actual worth of the company. The stock market isn't actually based on anything except for what people are willing to pay for pieces of companies. The value of a company is completely and totally unrelated to stock prices, unless, of course, that the entire stock-buying public agrees that they're tied together (which they don't).
"The growth of a company, and the price of individual shares, tells you about whether the company is growing and whether it's a good investment for your retirement. "
That's my point. That's not true. A company can grow, but if people don't want to buy their stock, then the stock price drops. If a company is doing badly, but people want to buy the stock, then the price goes up. Stock price is solely based on supply vs. demand. It's completely and totally disconnected from the underlying company.
Market capitalization has nothing to do with the size or quality of an organization. It has to do with how much investors are willing to pay for a share of stock. It's a completely and totally arbitrary figure, as anybody who lived through the dot-bomb days should thoroughly understand by now.
"I think you should have to send in meat soldiers if you want a war, get verification of who your killing, this is making it to easy to unclear to dangerous morally"
The US military doesn't care about civilian casualties. They've said it repeatedly. Most famously:
"We don't do body counts."
- General Tommy Franks - News conference at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan (March, 2002)
"I think by our children or grandchildren's lifetimes, the Air Force may be long gone"
Ah, ye of little faith in this country's military-industrial complex. It is the engine that drives our economy. We spend more on military junk than the rest of the world combined. We have, almost constantly, for the past 50 years, been invading some country or another for no particular reason. The day we see our military shrink one red cent will be the day we see Duke Nuke'Em Forever released.
I'm betting that most people who are looking for reviews online are just going to use Google. It's free and ubiquitous.
Regardless, online reviews are pretty pointless. They're anonymous and easily gamed by anybody on the planet. They're about as reliable as bathroom stall graffiti.
Yelp is a sham. They'll soon be swept into the dustbin of unprofitable dot-com businesses that were born out of massive venture capital and hype, but die quietly after a few years of losing money. I'm a small business owner and I don't care about Yelp. If a business owner is so out of touch with his/her business that they don't know if they have unhappy customers, then they're doomed to failure, anyway.
So what? Everybody who gave all of their personal information to a new company willy-nilly technically agreed that they could change their policies at will.Sure, nobody reads all of the legal-ese, but you're voluntarily giving VALUABLE personal information to a FOR PROFIT company. What did people THINK would happen? Did people think that Facebook would, as a corporate entity say, "We don't really want the revenue from selling our users' information?" I don't understand how people can be so naive.
Proof please of the very little paperwork statement?
I've run a business for years. I have employees. I pay taxes. I deal with all of it. It's not bad. To claim that governments are more of a concern than competition is indicative of somebody who has never attempted to operate their own business and is talking out of their proverbial ass.
We keep every order and receiving voucher and invoice that comes through the office. Why? RELIABILITY and FLEXIBILITY.
1. Flexibility is obvious. You can write anything on paper. Try scratching something out in a word processor, and writing in the margins. It CAN be done, but it's a royal PITA.
2. Reliability is the big kicker. There's more to reliability than just keeping good backups. There's also the reliance on the technology to get to those electronic documents. It's just not good enough for me to base my entire business on it. The second that anybody has a technical problem, it's lost time and money. There are no technical problems with paper.
Paper is really, really cheap, really easy, and really dependable. I won't be getting rid of paper any time soon. In fact, I need to go fax something...
As far as starting a business, I would love to own my own business. I'm more concerned about the governments (local, state, federal) and the IRS than I am about my competition and legal concerns.
You're a liar. Turn off the Fox news. There's very little paperwork involved with starting your own business.
I imagine with the continual growth of these social networks, high performance DB methodologies will experience tremendous growth, and perhaps even paradigm shifts in the way we logically think and design database architectures.
Your statement that social networks push databases to their theoretical limits is laughable. Larger, more frequently accessed, more complicated databases have existed for years (decades?) before the current crop of Friendster clones existed. Just because Facebook is the largest, most "high performance" database application that you can think of doesn't make it remotely true.
The problem of dealing with very large, frequently changing databases has been addressed and solved, already. The problem is that most PHP-monkeys have -zero- database knowledge, and instead of doing the work to figure out the right way to do things, they feel like they need to re-invent the wheel. A better solution is to pick up a book written by somebody who's been working with RDBMS' for a few decades. It's not a quick fix, but this problem has already been solved many, many times over.
Of course Toyota is right. The most likely cause of these "sudden acceleration" problems is humans with their foot on the gas pedal. I've owned plenty of Toyotas, and I wish that my current Toyota was in need of replacing right now, because now is a great time to buy one. Unfortunately, my current Toyota only has 150K miles, meaning that I have a good 5-10 years of life in my vehicle. After that... I'll buy another Toyota.
The silence was paid for. Microsoft probably gave them a really great deal, in exchange for going exclusively MS. MS does it for visibility.
I don't think it's stifling anything. Major IT decisions about an organization are made at the top, not by the users. That's the way things work the best. The same person or people who made the MS decision, are the same ones who would undo it, as well. So, who exactly are you trying to convince? If you don't like the policy, apply for the VP IT job.
I'd also like to point out that at this point, you have little to no information on which to think that going all MS is a BAD idea. Perhaps it's a very good thing for your organization, financially, or otherwise. You don't sound like you're in a position to know any of the decision making points for this organization, in fact. Why does everybody who can use a mouse think that they're qualified to offer their opinion on large IT infrastructure decisions?
Finally, IT is on its way to being considered a commodity, as it should. There's no reason for every organization to maintain their own IT infrastructure any more than there's reason for every organization to maintain their own electricity generation and distribution. Of course, the hordes of IT people won't be happy, as the number of It jobs will continue to fall precipitously, but such is life. Because everybody has access to relatively significant computing power, society as a whole gets to reap the rewards, as opposed to 20 years ago, when only the largest organizations had the money and the manpower to maintain an IT network of any kind.
Defense? The purpose of the US military as per the US Constitution? Heck, our military and political leaders forgot about defense a loooong time ago. It's been all about offense since the end of WWII. The US hasn't been involved in any military action that we didn't start in the first place, so this should be a tough one for the brass to wrap their heads around.
Slashdot Mirror
"3. The shows and movies are ad-free. Don't charge me AND expect me to watch ads!"
Suckers have been paying to watch ads via cable for 20+ years. As long as these same people are willing to pay to watch ads, I don't see any reason why Hulu would do anything different.
Market cap doesn't have anything to do with the financial health of a company. Market capitalization indicates the price that people are willing to pay for shares of the company. It's completely and totally unrelated to profitability.
"in this case, the company has become a commodity"
So was Napster, and Friendster, and Myspace.
In two years, Twitter will no longer be mainstream. Facebook is already in decline, and will tank once something "better" comes along. The Twitter phenomenon isn't new... it's just the newest version of the same thing.
Twitter is adding advertisements? Say it ain't true!
I've never heard of a dot-com company before that:
1. Starts with an ungodly amount of free money from investors
2. Becomes very, very popular, all while losing many millions of dollars
3. When the investment money invariably begins to slow down, the company tries to "monetize" a money-losing idea.
4. People hop off to the newest fad, leaving this one to languish and to be used by spammers and people from the Phillipines.
5. The company is bought by some much larger company for a ridiculous amount of money.
6. The large company can't capitalize on the earlier popularity, and the brand dies.
Yawn.
"Open source accounting"... if only there was such an application, Linux would be closer to being relevant to small businesses...
Until China learns how to act as responsible Internet citizens, I'll continue to blackhole as many of Chinese subnets as I can find both at work and home. Spam, malware, and every kind of crap comes from China, and I don't do business with any Chinese, so it's a no-brainer.
"Why would they do that?"
It happens every day. Just today, people bought (and sold) 439,869 shares of SCO.
"It's not totally disconnected."
Again... dot com days? Take a look at P/E. P/E's are completely different per company. Seanergy Maritime Corp trades for only 1.16 times its earnings. American National Insurance Co trades for 193 times its earnings. Stock prices really, honestly, truly, don't have anything to do with the actual worth of the company. The stock market isn't actually based on anything except for what people are willing to pay for pieces of companies. The value of a company is completely and totally unrelated to stock prices, unless, of course, that the entire stock-buying public agrees that they're tied together (which they don't).
"The growth of a company, and the price of individual shares, tells you about whether the company is growing and whether it's a good investment for your retirement. "
That's my point. That's not true. A company can grow, but if people don't want to buy their stock, then the stock price drops. If a company is doing badly, but people want to buy the stock, then the price goes up. Stock price is solely based on supply vs. demand. It's completely and totally disconnected from the underlying company.
Market capitalization has nothing to do with the size or quality of an organization. It has to do with how much investors are willing to pay for a share of stock. It's a completely and totally arbitrary figure, as anybody who lived through the dot-bomb days should thoroughly understand by now.
"Would you find a "war for oxygen" to be so distasteful?"
False dichotomy. We need oxygen. Oil just makes life more convenient. You should have said "Would you fight a war for television?"
"I think you should have to send in meat soldiers if you want a war, get verification of who your killing, this is making it to easy to unclear to dangerous morally"
The US military doesn't care about civilian casualties. They've said it repeatedly. Most famously:
"We don't do body counts."
- General Tommy Franks - News conference at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan (March, 2002)
"I think by our children or grandchildren's lifetimes, the Air Force may be long gone"
Ah, ye of little faith in this country's military-industrial complex. It is the engine that drives our economy. We spend more on military junk than the rest of the world combined. We have, almost constantly, for the past 50 years, been invading some country or another for no particular reason. The day we see our military shrink one red cent will be the day we see Duke Nuke'Em Forever released.
I'm betting that most people who are looking for reviews online are just going to use Google. It's free and ubiquitous.
Regardless, online reviews are pretty pointless. They're anonymous and easily gamed by anybody on the planet. They're about as reliable as bathroom stall graffiti.
Yelp is a sham. They'll soon be swept into the dustbin of unprofitable dot-com businesses that were born out of massive venture capital and hype, but die quietly after a few years of losing money. I'm a small business owner and I don't care about Yelp. If a business owner is so out of touch with his/her business that they don't know if they have unhappy customers, then they're doomed to failure, anyway.
So what? Everybody who gave all of their personal information to a new company willy-nilly technically agreed that they could change their policies at will.Sure, nobody reads all of the legal-ese, but you're voluntarily giving VALUABLE personal information to a FOR PROFIT company. What did people THINK would happen? Did people think that Facebook would, as a corporate entity say, "We don't really want the revenue from selling our users' information?" I don't understand how people can be so naive.
From what I read, it's not designed to take out entire satellites, but small debris that poses significant problems to existing satellites.
Proof please of the very little paperwork statement?
I've run a business for years. I have employees. I pay taxes. I deal with all of it. It's not bad. To claim that governments are more of a concern than competition is indicative of somebody who has never attempted to operate their own business and is talking out of their proverbial ass.
We keep every order and receiving voucher and invoice that comes through the office. Why? RELIABILITY and FLEXIBILITY.
1. Flexibility is obvious. You can write anything on paper. Try scratching something out in a word processor, and writing in the margins. It CAN be done, but it's a royal PITA.
2. Reliability is the big kicker. There's more to reliability than just keeping good backups. There's also the reliance on the technology to get to those electronic documents. It's just not good enough for me to base my entire business on it. The second that anybody has a technical problem, it's lost time and money. There are no technical problems with paper.
Paper is really, really cheap, really easy, and really dependable. I won't be getting rid of paper any time soon. In fact, I need to go fax something...
As far as starting a business, I would love to own my own business. I'm more concerned about the governments (local, state, federal) and the IRS than I am about my competition and legal concerns.
You're a liar. Turn off the Fox news. There's very little paperwork involved with starting your own business.
It sounds like you have a problem. Might want to see professional help. It's just a chunk of metal and plastic.
I imagine with the continual growth of these social networks, high performance DB methodologies will experience tremendous growth, and perhaps even paradigm shifts in the way we logically think and design database architectures.
Your statement that social networks push databases to their theoretical limits is laughable. Larger, more frequently accessed, more complicated databases have existed for years (decades?) before the current crop of Friendster clones existed. Just because Facebook is the largest, most "high performance" database application that you can think of doesn't make it remotely true.
The problem of dealing with very large, frequently changing databases has been addressed and solved, already. The problem is that most PHP-monkeys have -zero- database knowledge, and instead of doing the work to figure out the right way to do things, they feel like they need to re-invent the wheel. A better solution is to pick up a book written by somebody who's been working with RDBMS' for a few decades. It's not a quick fix, but this problem has already been solved many, many times over.
Of course Toyota is right. The most likely cause of these "sudden acceleration" problems is humans with their foot on the gas pedal. I've owned plenty of Toyotas, and I wish that my current Toyota was in need of replacing right now, because now is a great time to buy one. Unfortunately, my current Toyota only has 150K miles, meaning that I have a good 5-10 years of life in my vehicle. After that... I'll buy another Toyota.
The silence was paid for. Microsoft probably gave them a really great deal, in exchange for going exclusively MS. MS does it for visibility. I don't think it's stifling anything. Major IT decisions about an organization are made at the top, not by the users. That's the way things work the best. The same person or people who made the MS decision, are the same ones who would undo it, as well. So, who exactly are you trying to convince? If you don't like the policy, apply for the VP IT job. I'd also like to point out that at this point, you have little to no information on which to think that going all MS is a BAD idea. Perhaps it's a very good thing for your organization, financially, or otherwise. You don't sound like you're in a position to know any of the decision making points for this organization, in fact. Why does everybody who can use a mouse think that they're qualified to offer their opinion on large IT infrastructure decisions?
Finally, IT is on its way to being considered a commodity, as it should. There's no reason for every organization to maintain their own IT infrastructure any more than there's reason for every organization to maintain their own electricity generation and distribution. Of course, the hordes of IT people won't be happy, as the number of It jobs will continue to fall precipitously, but such is life. Because everybody has access to relatively significant computing power, society as a whole gets to reap the rewards, as opposed to 20 years ago, when only the largest organizations had the money and the manpower to maintain an IT network of any kind.
Defense? The purpose of the US military as per the US Constitution? Heck, our military and political leaders forgot about defense a loooong time ago. It's been all about offense since the end of WWII. The US hasn't been involved in any military action that we didn't start in the first place, so this should be a tough one for the brass to wrap their heads around.