Maybe you all can help me with something, but what's the big deal about marketshare among browsers. At least from a Wall Street point of view. Every browser I've ever owned was free, so it's not like Microsoft or Netscape or NCSA or Mozilla made money off me downloading it.
Besides the technical superiority of one browser over another, why does Microsoft or Mozilla or Wall Street care when one browser gains market share?
One must wonder why the NY Times and Washington Post, supposed "liberal media" centerpieces, do not even confront the likely truth -- that the last two elections were likely stolen.
I'm going to go with the path of least resistence here and say, "Because there's nothing to report."
Re:An IPO as new customer lure?
on
Vonage going IPO
·
· Score: 1
Only eligible for the IPO if you were a customer between Dec 2005 and Feb 2006. Don't have to be a customer now. And anyone joining now won't qualify.
Otherside of the coin
on
Vonage going IPO
·
· Score: 2, Informative
... an email about the voice mail. It's either legit or the 409ers managed to get my email address
and
phone number. Regardless, I think this is better than most IPOs who only offer to the elite brokerage houses, and better than Google where it was anyone's game. Offer to those who have a history of support.
Funny you ask this now. I was asking the same question just last weekend. I finally settled on Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. It's awesome in that it's like Guantlet from the days of yore. Just run around slash-and-grab. The co-op play is steller.
I too had recommendations of the Star Wars Legos and some of the other ones mentioned in this forum.
I will add that my g/f really, really was in to co-op Halo / Halo 2. I'm going to have to buy a damn 360 when Halo 3 comes out or she'll go ballistic.
Well, duh.
If you've ever played the game you know that their hands turn into green arrows when they're near a viable clue so of course they find them right away. And then the shading on the evidence changes around the spot they can use a magnifying glass.
Personally, I have trouble figuring out why it takes them a whole hour to solve anything.
As the resident techie, I've always been called on to fix and secure the computers of my friends and family and I always sang the praises of Symantec. Well after years of this, yesterday I finally removed Symantec Internet Security from my computer for PC-illin. I frankly got tired of having to reboot once a day due to memory leaks, perfectly good software from being run (even as administrator and after I explicitly stated the software was ok), and having to make special exceptions every time I wanted to install something new. Final straw was having random applications hang with no warning or response until I rebooted. I personally think Symantec should be scared - at least until they stop adding features without fixing their bread-and-butter.
Customer walks in to a diner. The owner comes over and hands him a piece of paper with all the food offerings listed.
Customer: What's this?
Owner: It's called a menu. You can pick what you want from it. It's a neat way to organize what's available.
Customer: Wow! What a great idea, you should patent it.
Owner: Nah, it's too obvious a trick. No one would think to try and take responsibility for it.
My understanding was there were left-wing zealots who hacked the websites of right-wing zealots then posted personal information on Indymedia with messages of "harass these people, burn their house down, add them to all sorts of spamming lists" (in order of horrificness). The reason slashdotters were so upset was they seemed to think it was the Police-State singling out someone's free speech, when in fact it was the FBI doing their jobs and investigating any number of infractions.
I understood your point. And history has shown that violence is sometimes necessary to invoke change.
I think it's a very good comparison, but as I stated, the Sons of Liberty weren't lauded but condemned. By today's standards the Boston Tea Party is tame, but at the time people were horrified at the violence. Perhaps history has glorified it, but I don't see anything patriotic in the Boston Tea Party and I certainly don't see anything patriotic in the Rodney King Riots.
You seem to suggest the Rodney King riots should be celebrated. But all it did was bring harm to the shop owners and the people living in the area. It helped justify the police's actions and further argument for the need of things like this Ray-Gun. And it did nothing to combat racism, or do you think white people sat around watching CNN and thinking to themselves: "Wow, I was wrong about black people" while watching a white truck driver get pulled out of his truck and beaten within an inch of his life or another man running out of an electronics store with a shopping cart full of TVs?
I'm probably naive, but as a ProtestWarrior, I've been to peacful protests and rowdy ones, and always seemed people listened to the peacful ones and steered clear of the rowdy ones. I've luckily never been tear gassed or peppered with beanbags, but it's also my experience the police don't use those things lightly. The majority of police officers I've come in contact at these things know that as soon as they put on the riot gear, there's going to be a riot. And believe it or not, and if for no other reason than they don't want to get hurt themselves, they like to prevent that.
"Rioting" really doesn't accomplish all that much. Whereas "Protesting" accomplishes more. Why do you think Dr. MLK is revered and Malcolm X villanized?
But to answer your questions: Boton tea party was a small faction of people - the Sons of Liberty - who were considered extremists and denounced publicly by the likes of John Adams. We celebrate them now that history has had a chance to smooth out the rough edges. Regardless, the destruction they caused was very deliberate. Crates of Tea being imported from British owned companies and excessively taxed. It was symbolic because the British were excessively taxing everything imported. Tea just happened to be in the harbor at the time.
Rodney King riots weren't decrying any wrongs of the government. It started out as a tantrum because 12 men and women couldn't determine beyond a reasonable doubt that those police officers were guilty of the charges brought against them. People were angry because the same laws that protect them from wrongful incarceration were protecting the people they didn't like. It escalated into a free-for-all of looting and stealing. There was no lesson learned that day except that people will steal and in some cases kill when they think they can get away with it.
You got the WTO right - they were just protests. However there's a fine line when you have a large mass of people who are protesting and a mob of people who are becoming unmanageable. It's also a fine line when you have to be the one to manage those people. Give them their right to protest, but don't let them trample on the rights of others be allowing them to get violent. Rubber bullets sting a lot less than a crowbar to the back of the head.
Tiananmen Square - I know you were being sarcastic so I won't berate you for it. All I can say is thank God I don't live in a communist state.
I agree that freedom of assembly is a good thing. I can agree that getting to the cause for disgruntlement is a good thing. But "rioting" isn't synonymous with "protesting" as you seem to want to make it. Rioting does the exact opposite of what you're trying to accomplish. It allows your opposers to point to you and say, "See! They're barbarians. Their ideas hold no weight."
Slashdot Mirror
Chia-planet?
Maybe you all can help me with something, but what's the big deal about marketshare among browsers. At least from a Wall Street point of view. Every browser I've ever owned was free, so it's not like Microsoft or Netscape or NCSA or Mozilla made money off me downloading it. Besides the technical superiority of one browser over another, why does Microsoft or Mozilla or Wall Street care when one browser gains market share?
I'm going to go with the path of least resistence here and say, "Because there's nothing to report."
Only eligible for the IPO if you were a customer between Dec 2005 and Feb 2006. Don't have to be a customer now. And anyone joining now won't qualify.
ZDNet blog on why the email/phone pitch is a wrong strategy: http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1086
- and
phone number. Regardless, I think this is better than most IPOs who only offer to the elite brokerage houses, and better than Google where it was anyone's game. Offer to those who have a history of support.Funny you ask this now. I was asking the same question just last weekend. I finally settled on Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. It's awesome in that it's like Guantlet from the days of yore. Just run around slash-and-grab. The co-op play is steller. I too had recommendations of the Star Wars Legos and some of the other ones mentioned in this forum. I will add that my g/f really, really was in to co-op Halo / Halo 2. I'm going to have to buy a damn 360 when Halo 3 comes out or she'll go ballistic.
Well, duh. If you've ever played the game you know that their hands turn into green arrows when they're near a viable clue so of course they find them right away. And then the shading on the evidence changes around the spot they can use a magnifying glass. Personally, I have trouble figuring out why it takes them a whole hour to solve anything.
As the resident techie, I've always been called on to fix and secure the computers of my friends and family and I always sang the praises of Symantec. Well after years of this, yesterday I finally removed Symantec Internet Security from my computer for PC-illin. I frankly got tired of having to reboot once a day due to memory leaks, perfectly good software from being run (even as administrator and after I explicitly stated the software was ok), and having to make special exceptions every time I wanted to install something new. Final straw was having random applications hang with no warning or response until I rebooted. I personally think Symantec should be scared - at least until they stop adding features without fixing their bread-and-butter.
Customer walks in to a diner. The owner comes over and hands him a piece of paper with all the food offerings listed. Customer: What's this? Owner: It's called a menu. You can pick what you want from it. It's a neat way to organize what's available. Customer: Wow! What a great idea, you should patent it. Owner: Nah, it's too obvious a trick. No one would think to try and take responsibility for it.
Wish I had a mod +1 for ya. That was pretty insightful. *grin*
My understanding was there were left-wing zealots who hacked the websites of right-wing zealots then posted personal information on Indymedia with messages of "harass these people, burn their house down, add them to all sorts of spamming lists" (in order of horrificness). The reason slashdotters were so upset was they seemed to think it was the Police-State singling out someone's free speech, when in fact it was the FBI doing their jobs and investigating any number of infractions.
I understood your point. And history has shown that violence is sometimes necessary to invoke change.
I think it's a very good comparison, but as I stated, the Sons of Liberty weren't lauded but condemned. By today's standards the Boston Tea Party is tame, but at the time people were horrified at the violence. Perhaps history has glorified it, but I don't see anything patriotic in the Boston Tea Party and I certainly don't see anything patriotic in the Rodney King Riots.
You seem to suggest the Rodney King riots should be celebrated. But all it did was bring harm to the shop owners and the people living in the area. It helped justify the police's actions and further argument for the need of things like this Ray-Gun. And it did nothing to combat racism, or do you think white people sat around watching CNN and thinking to themselves: "Wow, I was wrong about black people" while watching a white truck driver get pulled out of his truck and beaten within an inch of his life or another man running out of an electronics store with a shopping cart full of TVs?
I'm probably naive, but as a ProtestWarrior, I've been to peacful protests and rowdy ones, and always seemed people listened to the peacful ones and steered clear of the rowdy ones. I've luckily never been tear gassed or peppered with beanbags, but it's also my experience the police don't use those things lightly. The majority of police officers I've come in contact at these things know that as soon as they put on the riot gear, there's going to be a riot. And believe it or not, and if for no other reason than they don't want to get hurt themselves, they like to prevent that.
Not sure how you ended up with Insightful.
"Rioting" really doesn't accomplish all that much. Whereas "Protesting" accomplishes more. Why do you think Dr. MLK is revered and Malcolm X villanized?
But to answer your questions: Boton tea party was a small faction of people - the Sons of Liberty - who were considered extremists and denounced publicly by the likes of John Adams. We celebrate them now that history has had a chance to smooth out the rough edges. Regardless, the destruction they caused was very deliberate. Crates of Tea being imported from British owned companies and excessively taxed. It was symbolic because the British were excessively taxing everything imported. Tea just happened to be in the harbor at the time.
Rodney King riots weren't decrying any wrongs of the government. It started out as a tantrum because 12 men and women couldn't determine beyond a reasonable doubt that those police officers were guilty of the charges brought against them. People were angry because the same laws that protect them from wrongful incarceration were protecting the people they didn't like. It escalated into a free-for-all of looting and stealing. There was no lesson learned that day except that people will steal and in some cases kill when they think they can get away with it.
You got the WTO right - they were just protests. However there's a fine line when you have a large mass of people who are protesting and a mob of people who are becoming unmanageable. It's also a fine line when you have to be the one to manage those people. Give them their right to protest, but don't let them trample on the rights of others be allowing them to get violent. Rubber bullets sting a lot less than a crowbar to the back of the head.
Tiananmen Square - I know you were being sarcastic so I won't berate you for it. All I can say is thank God I don't live in a communist state.
I agree that freedom of assembly is a good thing. I can agree that getting to the cause for disgruntlement is a good thing. But "rioting" isn't synonymous with "protesting" as you seem to want to make it. Rioting does the exact opposite of what you're trying to accomplish. It allows your opposers to point to you and say, "See! They're barbarians. Their ideas hold no weight."
It's simply list of 1,886 of the 46,000 voters registered in both New York and Florida. 68% of which are dems (and 1,700 of which requested absentee ballots.)2 807c.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/224449p-19