They are close to the $30 Million dollar mark! Hooray!
Okay... is that gross sales? Net profit? Payroll? My guess is gross sales, but the summary doesn't say. Without that other piece of information, this summary makes ZERO sense (and you can put any unit you want after ZERO).
Hey, guys, my car goes from 0 to 120 in 3! That makes about as much sense as the summary.
Yeah. Exactly what I was looking for. An extension to Firefox that doesn't work with Firefox 3 and hasn't been actively worked on since 2006. Witness the power of open source!
In all seriousness. If the government wants to get information, they are not going to the trouble of an electron microscope to look at your hard drive. I'm sure they have other methods of extracting the information they want. While this information (about how many wipes you need) is interesting from a theoretical point of view, it is useless from a practical one.
The solution to this dilemma is quite simple: Democracy stops where human rights begin. Do what you want as long as you do no harm. That's why I don't think the voters have any rights in this matter.
Please at least try to read the post before responding. The point had NOTHING to do with which side is right. It has to do with whether Google should be involved in fighting for EITHER side. You missed the entire point of the thread.
Regarding the Yahoo case. Yahoo must choose between following the law or not doing business there. They do not have the choice to disobey but try to make a buck.
Second point - GM doesn't care about the town. Nor should they. That should be up to the people of that town and its government to figure out. Saying to GM "hey.... be a good guy... don't shut down the plant even though you are losing money" is not a viable option. You might wish for corporations to behave "ethically" but decades of experience have taught me this does not happen.
When Enron behaved "unethically", I blame our government for not regulating business properly. Saying "hey companies... act ethically please" ain't going to work. I have no power over Enron or any other company. Government, working properly, should keep these things in check.
We, through government, should tell corporations what limits they may operate in. From an environmental standpoint, from a discriminatory standpoint, that should be decided by us. Not left up to individual companies. I don't believe this should be heavy handed, but leaving it up to individual companies is foolish. Company A decides to save money by polluting is at a competitive advantage over Company B who decides to be environmentally friendly. Basically you advocate penalizing ethical behavior.
Why should corps be silent on issues that affect them? The problem with corps is undue influence, not them speaking in the first place.
By the very nature of multi-billion dollar corporations, they have undue influence.
And the lack of gay marriage is putting Google at a competitive disadvantage.... who are they at a disadvantage compared to? Their competitors in Alabama?
Put aside whatever your thoughts on whether same-sex marriage should be legal or not. Try to look at this from a systems standpoint.
First, we have a court decision allowing gay marriage. Then, we get a proposition that the voters decide that it should be illegal. Here, we have a very classic case of the voters' wishes versus the concept of legal rights which should not be subject to democratic vote. One side claims that marriage is an inalienable right regardless of gender, and the other side which says this isn't the case. Very deep stuff.
Now, stirring up the issue are corporations. Where in the hell do corporations belong in this? I am of the classical view that corporations are there to make and distribute money. I've never been comfortable with corporations lobbying lawmakers. I have never been comfortable with corporations donating to causes. Let them make and distribute wealth and let individuals make those choices.
When corporations get involved with government, it gets ugly. Same with church and state. So regardless of my feelings on Google's position, my thought is they should shut up. If individuals in Google want to take a stand, fine. But when it becomes Google versus the voters, I become uneasy.
Was in Plato who suggested that people were only seeing a shadow of reality and it was up to philosophers to see the reality and describe it to the masses? It has been years since I studied philosophy, but I seem to recall something like this. I also seem to recall one of his lesser-known disciples, Aristotle discounting this altogether and starting his own school of thought.
And a second point. I had to review to make sure my recollection was right, but Lot did NOT know who his visitors were
" The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.""
Um... no he wasn't. He chooses to live in a city known for its not-so-good lifestyle. During the flight from the city his own wife doesn't even listen to him. After fleeing the city, he got drunk and knocked up his daughters.
The fact is the Bible is full of stories where no real commentary is made on whether the actions are wrong or right. And, like it or not, the morays were different then. I am not even claiming that the stories are a 100% accurate description of what happened. However, there is no indication that Lot was a "righteous" person given by the Bible account.
or leaving your daughter to be gang raped so a guy doesn't have to endure homosexualit, or helping out your sworn enemies just because it is the right thing to do,
Exactly where does the Bible advocate this? Answer: it doesn't. You are referring to a story about Lot. Simply because a story gets told about someone's actions doesn't meant that it is being advocated as being right.
Hello. I have Karma to burn and this is for a worthy cause.
Khan died yesterday. This should be the biggest news story of the day, clearly bigger than Steve's medical absence. Yet nothing on Slashdot. Where are the stories? Instead, I have to learn about it on CNN. What has Slashdot come to?
Mod me down if you will. But if you are like me, and a little piece of your trekkie sold has died, mod me up, or better yet, tell the story about the first time you saw him in the movie.
You know what is funny? When he first bought that damned Rubik's Cube 26 years ago, I rearanged two of the stickers. The thing was no longer solvable.
I thought it was funny at the time. But when he missed his son's birth, it was all the more hilarious. He is sitting there screwing around with this thing while his wife is in labor. (He didn't have any more kids after that.)
Two and a half decades later, the schmuck is still working on it. Okay... I had enough. One night as he is passed out in his recliner, I rearrange the stickers again. Only would have taken three twists to solve it. But the dumb ass takes another six months to solve it.
Sorry for your wasted life, my second born son. But seeing how dumb you are, the world's is probably better off without you messing around in it.
I knew my wife was the right one when (while engaged) she was scored tickets to a Weird Al concert, an was singing along to the songs during the concert...
This assumes that the method simply has a random chance of getting each data point wrong. What if it is something systematic with the method that causes it to read one gene wrong? In other words, it reads the gene as a 'T' every time despite it really being an 'A'. No matter how many tests you run, it will still result in a wrong answer.
I hate to break this to you, but generally stock prices go UP after an announcement like this. Investors see it as a company working hard to cut costs. Since Microsoft is nowhere near close to losing money... its profits are going through the roof... investors would react very favorably.
Microsoft is still massively profitable. This downsizing will only make them more profitable. Microsoft may not be the #1 player in 20 or even 10 years, but this event has little to do with that.
Slashdot Mirror
They are close to the $30 Million dollar mark! Hooray!
Okay... is that gross sales? Net profit? Payroll? My guess is gross sales, but the summary doesn't say. Without that other piece of information, this summary makes ZERO sense (and you can put any unit you want after ZERO).
Hey, guys, my car goes from 0 to 120 in 3! That makes about as much sense as the summary.
Yeah. Exactly what I was looking for. An extension to Firefox that doesn't work with Firefox 3 and hasn't been actively worked on since 2006. Witness the power of open source!
I guarantee I'd talk inside of a minute. What about you?
That's what they WANT you to think.
In all seriousness. If the government wants to get information, they are not going to the trouble of an electron microscope to look at your hard drive. I'm sure they have other methods of extracting the information they want. While this information (about how many wipes you need) is interesting from a theoretical point of view, it is useless from a practical one.
Out of curiosity, why did you add me to your foe list?
The solution to this dilemma is quite simple: Democracy stops where human rights begin. Do what you want as long as you do no harm. That's why I don't think the voters have any rights in this matter.
Please at least try to read the post before responding. The point had NOTHING to do with which side is right. It has to do with whether Google should be involved in fighting for EITHER side. You missed the entire point of the thread.
Regarding the Yahoo case. Yahoo must choose between following the law or not doing business there. They do not have the choice to disobey but try to make a buck.
Second point - GM doesn't care about the town. Nor should they. That should be up to the people of that town and its government to figure out. Saying to GM "hey.... be a good guy... don't shut down the plant even though you are losing money" is not a viable option. You might wish for corporations to behave "ethically" but decades of experience have taught me this does not happen.
When Enron behaved "unethically", I blame our government for not regulating business properly. Saying "hey companies... act ethically please" ain't going to work. I have no power over Enron or any other company. Government, working properly, should keep these things in check.
We, through government, should tell corporations what limits they may operate in. From an environmental standpoint, from a discriminatory standpoint, that should be decided by us. Not left up to individual companies. I don't believe this should be heavy handed, but leaving it up to individual companies is foolish. Company A decides to save money by polluting is at a competitive advantage over Company B who decides to be environmentally friendly. Basically you advocate penalizing ethical behavior.
Why should corps be silent on issues that affect them? The problem with corps is undue influence, not them speaking in the first place.
By the very nature of multi-billion dollar corporations, they have undue influence.
And the lack of gay marriage is putting Google at a competitive disadvantage.... who are they at a disadvantage compared to? Their competitors in Alabama?
Put aside whatever your thoughts on whether same-sex marriage should be legal or not. Try to look at this from a systems standpoint.
First, we have a court decision allowing gay marriage. Then, we get a proposition that the voters decide that it should be illegal. Here, we have a very classic case of the voters' wishes versus the concept of legal rights which should not be subject to democratic vote. One side claims that marriage is an inalienable right regardless of gender, and the other side which says this isn't the case. Very deep stuff.
Now, stirring up the issue are corporations. Where in the hell do corporations belong in this? I am of the classical view that corporations are there to make and distribute money. I've never been comfortable with corporations lobbying lawmakers. I have never been comfortable with corporations donating to causes. Let them make and distribute wealth and let individuals make those choices.
When corporations get involved with government, it gets ugly. Same with church and state. So regardless of my feelings on Google's position, my thought is they should shut up. If individuals in Google want to take a stand, fine. But when it becomes Google versus the voters, I become uneasy.
Was in Plato who suggested that people were only seeing a shadow of reality and it was up to philosophers to see the reality and describe it to the masses? It has been years since I studied philosophy, but I seem to recall something like this. I also seem to recall one of his lesser-known disciples, Aristotle discounting this altogether and starting his own school of thought.
Amazing how things come full circle.
And a second point. I had to review to make sure my recollection was right, but Lot did NOT know who his visitors were
" The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.""
Um... no he wasn't. He chooses to live in a city known for its not-so-good lifestyle. During the flight from the city his own wife doesn't even listen to him. After fleeing the city, he got drunk and knocked up his daughters.
The fact is the Bible is full of stories where no real commentary is made on whether the actions are wrong or right. And, like it or not, the morays were different then. I am not even claiming that the stories are a 100% accurate description of what happened. However, there is no indication that Lot was a "righteous" person given by the Bible account.
or leaving your daughter to be gang raped so a guy doesn't have to endure homosexualit, or helping out your sworn enemies just because it is the right thing to do,
Exactly where does the Bible advocate this? Answer: it doesn't. You are referring to a story about Lot. Simply because a story gets told about someone's actions doesn't meant that it is being advocated as being right.
Hello. I have Karma to burn and this is for a worthy cause.
Khan died yesterday. This should be the biggest news story of the day, clearly bigger than Steve's medical absence. Yet nothing on Slashdot. Where are the stories? Instead, I have to learn about it on CNN. What has Slashdot come to?
Mod me down if you will. But if you are like me, and a little piece of your trekkie sold has died, mod me up, or better yet, tell the story about the first time you saw him in the movie.
You hear the whooshing sound? I'm not sure what it is either.
I got fr1st p0st!
course I have had twenty nine cups of coffee, and my screen looks like a bad knockoff Picaso painting.
I'm assuming no kids? I would love the shift, but only if I had no kids.
You know what is funny? When he first bought that damned Rubik's Cube 26 years ago, I rearanged two of the stickers. The thing was no longer solvable.
I thought it was funny at the time. But when he missed his son's birth, it was all the more hilarious. He is sitting there screwing around with this thing while his wife is in labor. (He didn't have any more kids after that.)
Two and a half decades later, the schmuck is still working on it. Okay... I had enough. One night as he is passed out in his recliner, I rearrange the stickers again. Only would have taken three twists to solve it. But the dumb ass takes another six months to solve it.
Sorry for your wasted life, my second born son. But seeing how dumb you are, the world's is probably better off without you messing around in it.
I knew my wife was the right one when (while engaged) she was scored tickets to a Weird Al concert, an was singing along to the songs during the concert...
Exactly! But I do it twice for additional protection.
And you post your resume on Slashdot. Disqualified.
But your idea for a beer bong has already been taken. And don't even get me started on your ideas about transgendered midget porn.
This assumes that the method simply has a random chance of getting each data point wrong. What if it is something systematic with the method that causes it to read one gene wrong? In other words, it reads the gene as a 'T' every time despite it really being an 'A'. No matter how many tests you run, it will still result in a wrong answer.
I hate to break this to you, but generally stock prices go UP after an announcement like this. Investors see it as a company working hard to cut costs. Since Microsoft is nowhere near close to losing money... its profits are going through the roof... investors would react very favorably.
Microsoft is still massively profitable. This downsizing will only make them more profitable. Microsoft may not be the #1 player in 20 or even 10 years, but this event has little to do with that.