To add insult to injury, I wonder if it was a no bid contract?
For anybody who thinks "18 million" is "pocket change," how about this bid: For ONE Million, I'll start working on TransparentAccounting.org again, hire a team of four other developers (making the team total FIVE including myself), pay each of the four $210,000 for a yearly salary, and account for the differences between their pay an mine for a whole entire year.
No, you are right.
The reason the Pacific Ocean floor is newer is because it's still actively growing quickly as the surrounding plates move away. So while the Atlantic is newer than the Pacific, the *floor* of the Pacific is generally newer than the floor of the Atlantic.
So, in a sense, the parent was correct, but only in a limited sense.
Yes, I did mean the Atlantic coast of the US is older than the west coast / Pacific Rim of Fire side.
I also think it could be reasonably hypothesized that on the Atlantic coast, the gradual slope of the continental shelf / slope / rise could be explained by a longer time period of waves lapping the sediments and such into finer and finer particles. Perhaps explaining how quickly the continents have been drifting apart.
East-coast (of the US) sand is also generally much more fine-grained than west-coast sand, at least south of the glacial areas of the Great Lakes.
The Pacific Ocean is geologically much more new and deeper than the Atlantic side, which has a much more gradual slope on the continental shelf / continental slope / continental rise subduction system between continents. So we know the Atlantic is older.
Another fun (dynamic) map showing some actual geologic and volcanic activity:
The Olympics last year were what motivated me to attempt to do the TV thing . . . so I found a very small set and got some rabbit ears. It was pleasantly surprising to discover the dual nature of the channel settings available . . . the old analog signal is still full of snow and noise while the digital airwaves really are better than cable. Channels are a little bit longer (e.g. KQED is 09-003, needs to be manually entered with the dash and all. Best of all, no monthly cable bill!
It's likely that the cable / satellite television industry is going to take a hard hit once people figure out that the can get clarity without paying for ridiculous "service contracts" and "package deals" and "bundles".
Maybe you've not looked hard enough? It does exist, but what most OSS lacks is marketing/promo budget. That is why comprehensive lists like this (eCommerce, ERP, and Business Enterprise) are good.;)
He's a lawyer people. The RIAA regularly gives him a couple grand "for the kids".
*sigh* I liked Obama for his "get out of Iraq" talk. He backtracked all those statements, now wants to remain there and spend even more than McCain (does he think that's a popular position ?). For every single other point I like McCain. *sigh*
I'm gonna go McCain. Yes he's Bush's successor, but at least he doesn't take "free money" from the devil.
Ensure net neutrality: no corporate-tiered Internet. (Jan 2007)
Create online database of science & math scholarships. (Dec 2007)
Website for competitive federal awards. (Jun 2008)
Overturn FCC approval of media consolidation. (Mar 2008)
The last one -- overturning FCC approval of media consolidation -- is the most telling. To me, that "free money" $2,000 from the RIAA means practically nothing if he's voting to destroy the foundation of what makes the RIAA's influence so powerful. The RIAA couldn't throw $$ at politicians if it didn't have some serious power.
And where does the RIAA get that power? From consolidated media, of course. Most musical superstars become superstars not because of their talent, but because of the *distribution* of their work via media hype which is only aggrandized by media consolidation.
McCain's record:
Voted NO on disallowing FCC approval of larger media conglomerates. (Sep 2003)
Voted NO on telecomm deregulation. (Feb 1996)
You sure about that, OeLeWaPpErKe? I would venture it's pretty obvious that a vote for McCain is a vote for . . . well, the devil.:)
Maybe it's not so much an issue of writing "better" code as it is an issue of having a sense of humor.
The problem with code is that people have to see code that works to take you seriously before they begin to "get" your sense of humor: the tactics / strategy things someone wrote of earlier. Many females have a difficult enough time being taken seriously and spend maybe a little more time than necessary on their comments; as the OP stated, crafting a "roadmap" of sorts can save a lot of time on any potential future iterations of code.
Example. I wrote what I thought was an extremely useful (but somewhat punny) "JavaScript Skeleton", intended to be nothing more than some semi-useful documentation regarding comments and formatting for JavaScript and comments RE JavaScript in HTML. I placed this "JavaScript Skeleton" in a section near the "JavaScript Shells" section of wiki documentation at http://developer.mozilla.org./ Lo and behold, some dolt void of humor proceeds to remove the contribution and to climb back on a high horse. I would have (should have) objected, but it would not have been worth the effort. Let idiots' actions speak for themselves.
Point. It IS possible to write documentation and to maintain a sense of humor. Documentation with a sense of humor might not be quite as bare-bones as possible, but at least it's not boring. However. It's sometimes just not possible to get others to see or understand a particular person's sense of humor. Something about funny bones and all that. . .
This is true. However, it is an oligopoly in which collusion and cartels are more likely. And this means the FCC still has pull.
Verizon probably won't win the early termination fees suit if it goes to the US Supreme Court, and it knows that, so it's doing the next most predatory thing it can.
The article in the OP stated: "The companies noted that Alltel is serving 57 mostly rural markets that Verizon Wireless does not serve." In other words, Verizon is buying out the rural markets, giving those people less choice, even if -- and especially if -- the suit does go to the Supreme Court.
It's probably very interesting to note what kind of correlation there is between the states' litigation against Verizon (and its cronies) and the areas Alltel serves: like "dollars of litigation" total in rural states vs. the "dollars of litigation" in the cities that Verizon tends to serve. Very interesting indeed.
What I find more interesting than the "main story" is the article at the last link in the summary.
Microsoft could walk away from Yahoo deal Precisely. If investors had wanted to entrust their dollars with Microsoft management, they would have invested in Microsoft stock, not Yahoo! stock.
Of all the web companies, Yahoo! is actually in one of the best positions to capitalize on changing standards, even moreso than Google, I think; the key word in the previous sentence being "capitalize". Perhaps one of the reasons Microsoft was/is so eager to get its hands on Yahoo is the intangible and intellectual properties, many of which currently adhere to open or freely-researchable standards. Microsoft doesn't generally tend to be a purporter of open or freely-researchable standards unless it can get its brand name or the Microsoft logo in there somewhere.
Most people, upon discovering Google Earth, want to check out their local area -- to see if their house or workplace or whatever is visible from the views or street views. It's a cool and interesting thing. However, it's also important to remember that in reality, nobody else is likely so interested in your particular little plot or slice of life and landmarks.
Among all the 6.6 or so billion people on Planet Earth, this couple are likely the only people who even noticed that particular view on that particular tract of land. Maybe somebody should tell Aaron and Christine Boring of the Pittsburgh suburb known as Franklin Park that not many people are or would even have reason to be so interested in the photogenic quality of their particular street or house.
I think frivolous lawsuits like these are why the judicial system is so backed up. The US lacks no shortage of conceited lawsuit-happy idiots.
+2 Informative. Wow, this is very awesome. More states should be this progressive.
I had an awful experience in my tax law classes; basically the only thing I learned was that whatever firm hired me upon graduation would most likely force me to play by their rules and require me to sign a non-compete contract. BTW H&R Block is infamous for noncompetes and doing really insane things with tax preparation fees. Anyway. Kinda doomed me into thinking I might be potentially stuck doing a job I hated, was inefficient and illogical for an unknown amount of time. (Keep in mind this tax law class took place in Utah.) That was also when I decided to avoid the CPA route like the plague. Contracts spell doom. Microsoft + Contracts spell MegaDoom.
It doesn't surprise me that the ruling cited in the blog link is Arthur Andersen, LLP. Any accounting or business undergrads please take note. Something about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act might ring a bell.
About a decade too late, Microsoft is finally seeing the light.
A recent article (registration required) in the New York Times discusses how the Redmond giant is now "giving students free access to its most sophisticated tools for writing software and making media-rich Web sites."
Ha! I would definitely disagree on the "sophisticated" adjective. Are these noble motives? Hardly. But for non-technical types, this could easily be painted as a seeming variety of evangelical philanthropy. Truth-seekers might ask: does Microsoft really care about all those poor, starving students of the Universe? And if so, why does it care now instead of before; haven't computers been around quite awhile? If (past) actions speak louder than words, the obvious answer would be "Microsoft doesn't care." This futile freebie is far too little, far too late. The computing world got along just fine before there was a Microsoft, and it will continue to get along well whether or not Microsoft does. It could probably be easily proven that the legally-laden profit-seeking motives of the MSFT corporation have actually hindered progress, especially progress of technically-inclined students.
One of the main problems with capitalism is that it is based on the assumption that every single action by every person everywhere has a monetary-based profit motive. If this were true, libraries would not exist. Indeed, in a purely profit-motivated society, freedom itself would not exist, as time itself would be handcuffed to the dollar sign; choice, the ability to research between or among alternatives, and a non time-constrained intuition are keys for progress.
A related, but somewhat tangent aside: I cannot quantify the irritation I have with my Business 2.0 magazine subscription being replaced by the megacorporate-centric Fortune magazine. The latest two editions have been severely disappointing. Business 2.0 was about innovation, ideas, progression, change for the better. Fortune had "The $100 Billion Woman" Melinda Gates on the cover for January 2008 and some corporate greed investment propaganda on the cover for February of 2008. Evil real estate people. While I can respect "rich, powerful" women, I don't really aspire to go about having dollar signs attached to my "net worth".
I sometimes wonder what direction my academic career might have taken if I'd discovered Free Open-Source Software sooner. My advocation of FOSS stands today stronger than before; it is indeed a particularly useful tool for students, teachers, professors, small-medium business owners and other efficient people of the world.
<p>Microsoft-ites wanted to "kill Google" . . . but they couldn't. So now they're attempting to kill Yahoo!, the company that gave Google bocos of it's initial funding: <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/02/1456237&from=rss">as noted during Yahoo!'s 10th birthday.</a>. Good for Yahoo! rejecting a hostile takeover attempt; the last thing it needs is to take on the burden of Microsoft's <a href="http://www.zentu.net/network/?q=node/3">inefficiency</a>, regardless of how much that might bring them pseudo-gains in stock price during the short term.</p>
<p>Something tells me Microsoft-ites will be wanting to throw more than chairs on Monday.</p>
I bet the total value of this "tax break" is > $528M. It depends upon which entities' taxes you refer.
Microsoft has effectively paid its employees with your tax dollars for years.
True, also because of its significant presence in the US state of Washington, most of those Microsoft employees are able to avoid paying income tax (state income tax at least) on those salaries. Washington is one of those states that has income-tax exemptions. Isn't it so very interesting that Microsoft is not a state-centric business, but that their products are earning revenues from all US states, overseas, etc.?
Couple avoidance of a state income tax with the fact that many Washingtonians head south to Oregon for some of those lovely sales tax breaks since, well, the state of OR has no state sales tax.
I've thought before that tax accounting is a game that only the supremely wealthy can afford to play (unethically do they play the game, imho, since most of their ethics are hinged upon avoidance of litigation) and all the while do their games erode the safety and well-being of middle-class people. It could even be argued that Microsoft's "ability" to do a hostile takeover of Yahoo! is most likely resultant from the tax dollars paid by many middle-class people, written off on paper tax forms, and essentially wasted.
begin: Small digression: Of course, Semel's insane executive compensation package or whatever it was certainly didn't seem to add much value of the majority of Yahoo! stakeholders and/or shareholders during his time. Maybe if he'd agreed to less compensation, and to giving others more, Yahoo! wouldn't be having this problem. The Microsoft-centric model has the same problem with the added result that it would most likely just kill small business.
Indeed, I really hope this doesn't indicate that the way of the small business is dying if not dead, and that it's just a matter time in watching giant corporate entities eat each other alive. No matter how it's viewed from a small business perspective, this can't be good since what Microsoft is essentially offering is to pay Yahoo! to take on some of its inefficiency burden, is it not?
The unfortunate thing about the wikipedia angle is that there are far too many individuals who go in and edit or remove relevant info, calling it "linkspam" or making some kind of unfounded COI claim. Free Open-Source Software is what it is why it is. Moore's Law means that the cost of data storage is going down. The cost of managing? Not going down quite as much, especially as more people contribute, increasing the complexity factor. Managing a data warehouse is not the same as managing an actual physical warehouse of consumer goods when it comes to square feet!
Regardless whether storing or managing -- if the hosting and managing aspect is becoming too much to bear on donations alone, a funding mechanism for sustenance would eventually need to be obtained. The persons who are haughty about removing outside (offsite) links from wikipedia should realize that when the private sectors are required to compete with each other in the same ways that they are expected and required to compete with one another in the public sector, efficiency is usually obtained. Increases in usefulness and timeliness of information are also obtained. Time and energy of people is not wasted just because it can be via a dollar amount, as often happens with lengthy legal battles. And legal battles almost always involve the Principle-Agent Problem. >> nonexistant wikipedia link at this time.
Nope. This, however: 2005 DOJ Case is a somewhat related technical topic which could probably use some more discussion. Seems a bit obvious how the National Association of Realtors colludes to exploit people in many of the same ways Microsoft does!:)
Anyway. Some of the individuals removing information or links are not even originating from the correct language tree for the countries where they are. Check the "edit history" of various pages in the/en/wikipedia/ tree and notice how many edits are done by people from non-US IPs. It's not that there's anything wrong with sorting the disambiguation of acronyms, but it's a definite problem, for example, in search technology. Many seem to have a language barrier issue with understanding what exactly FOSS is about. English is one of the most technically accurate languages, imho; that's why the 'net started here. I've personally linked to a lot of information on wikipedia articles and have contributed in one manner or another to a lot of F/OSS projects, but having the project I'm managing removed and called "linkspam" when I'm not selling anything nor requesting any donations is just not cool.
I think "overpays" would be the more appropriate verb.
The accounting equation is this: Assets = Liabilites + Owners' Equity.
Is it being too obvious to point out which side of the equation is affected most by things like closed-source, lawsuit threats, FUD, etc.?
There's no such thing as an efficient lawsuit.
Dyslexic wording in the headline? It took a moment for me to get that the title of this was *not* "ASUS Mothership Boards with Embedded Linux". Tired brain = dyslexic processing.
What an interesting script. . . despite the plea to keep threads "on topic" it does seem that the parent topic is almost always (pleasantly) derailed w/comment on/.
It's amazing how little bands or artists themselves actually get of the $12.99 - $18.99 typical selling price of an album. In grad school, I took a negotiations class and one of the mock negotiations was for a typical record label and band. . . breaking down the actual cost of the deal, the record label often makes more money per album than the band itself makes from the album, factoring in a variety of legal/inflated expenses.
Slashdot Mirror
To add insult to injury, I wonder if it was a no bid contract?
For anybody who thinks "18 million" is "pocket change," how about this bid: For ONE Million, I'll start working on TransparentAccounting.org again, hire a team of four other developers (making the team total FIVE including myself), pay each of the four $210,000 for a yearly salary, and account for the differences between their pay an mine for a whole entire year.
No, you are right. The reason the Pacific Ocean floor is newer is because it's still actively growing quickly as the surrounding plates move away. So while the Atlantic is newer than the Pacific, the *floor* of the Pacific is generally newer than the floor of the Atlantic. So, in a sense, the parent was correct, but only in a limited sense.
Yes, I did mean the Atlantic coast of the US is older than the west coast / Pacific Rim of Fire side.
I also think it could be reasonably hypothesized that on the Atlantic coast, the gradual slope of the continental shelf / slope / rise could be explained by a longer time period of waves lapping the sediments and such into finer and finer particles. Perhaps explaining how quickly the continents have been drifting apart.
East-coast (of the US) sand is also generally much more fine-grained than west-coast sand, at least south of the glacial areas of the Great Lakes.
for the Nascar grapes
The Pacific Ocean is geologically much more new and deeper than the Atlantic side, which has a much more gradual slope on the continental shelf / continental slope / continental rise subduction system between continents. So we know the Atlantic is older.
Another fun (dynamic) map showing some actual geologic and volcanic activity:
http://oss.zentu.net/?q=node/118
The Olympics last year were what motivated me to attempt to do the TV thing . . . so I found a very small set and got some rabbit ears. It was pleasantly surprising to discover the dual nature of the channel settings available . . . the old analog signal is still full of snow and noise while the digital airwaves really are better than cable. Channels are a little bit longer (e.g. KQED is 09-003, needs to be manually entered with the dash and all. Best of all, no monthly cable bill!
It's likely that the cable / satellite television industry is going to take a hard hit once people figure out that the can get clarity without paying for ridiculous "service contracts" and "package deals" and "bundles".
vBulletin makes me want to put a bullet in my head.
Seriously, though, this list is bigger. And better. :P
Maybe you've not looked hard enough? It does exist, but what most OSS lacks is marketing/promo budget. That is why comprehensive lists like this (eCommerce, ERP, and Business Enterprise) are good. ;)
Well Obama's a lawyer that took the RIAA's "free money" while senator.
He's a lawyer people. The RIAA regularly gives him a couple grand "for the kids".
*sigh* I liked Obama for his "get out of Iraq" talk. He backtracked all those statements, now wants to remain there and spend even more than McCain (does he think that's a popular position ?). For every single other point I like McCain. *sigh*
I'm gonna go McCain. Yes he's Bush's successor, but at least he doesn't take "free money" from the devil.
The followings is a short list of where Barack stands on technology issues.
Ensure net neutrality: no corporate-tiered Internet. (Jan 2007)
Create online database of science & math scholarships. (Dec 2007)
Website for competitive federal awards. (Jun 2008)
Overturn FCC approval of media consolidation. (Mar 2008)
The last one -- overturning FCC approval of media consolidation -- is the most telling. To me, that "free money" $2,000 from the RIAA means practically nothing if he's voting to destroy the foundation of what makes the RIAA's influence so powerful. The RIAA couldn't throw $$ at politicians if it didn't have some serious power.
And where does the RIAA get that power? From consolidated media, of course. Most musical superstars become superstars not because of their talent, but because of the *distribution* of their work via media hype which is only aggrandized by media consolidation.
McCain's record:
Voted NO on disallowing FCC approval of larger media conglomerates. (Sep 2003)
Voted NO on telecomm deregulation. (Feb 1996)
You sure about that, OeLeWaPpErKe? I would venture it's pretty obvious that a vote for McCain is a vote for . . . well, the devil. :)
Maybe it's not so much an issue of writing "better" code as it is an issue of having a sense of humor.
The problem with code is that people have to see code that works to take you seriously before they begin to "get" your sense of humor: the tactics / strategy things someone wrote of earlier. Many females have a difficult enough time being taken seriously and spend maybe a little more time than necessary on their comments; as the OP stated, crafting a "roadmap" of sorts can save a lot of time on any potential future iterations of code.
Example. I wrote what I thought was an extremely useful (but somewhat punny) "JavaScript Skeleton", intended to be nothing more than some semi-useful documentation regarding comments and formatting for JavaScript and comments RE JavaScript in HTML. I placed this "JavaScript Skeleton" in a section near the "JavaScript Shells" section of wiki documentation at http://developer.mozilla.org./ Lo and behold, some dolt void of humor proceeds to remove the contribution and to climb back on a high horse. I would have (should have) objected, but it would not have been worth the effort. Let idiots' actions speak for themselves.
Point. It IS possible to write documentation and to maintain a sense of humor. Documentation with a sense of humor might not be quite as bare-bones as possible, but at least it's not boring. However. It's sometimes just not possible to get others to see or understand a particular person's sense of humor. Something about funny bones and all that. . .
This is true. However, it is an oligopoly in which collusion and cartels are more likely. And this means the FCC still has pull.
Verizon probably won't win the early termination fees suit if it goes to the US Supreme Court, and it knows that, so it's doing the next most predatory thing it can.
The article in the OP stated: "The companies noted that Alltel is serving 57 mostly rural markets that Verizon Wireless does not serve." In other words, Verizon is buying out the rural markets, giving those people less choice, even if -- and especially if -- the suit does go to the Supreme Court.
It's probably very interesting to note what kind of correlation there is between the states' litigation against Verizon (and its cronies) and the areas Alltel serves: like "dollars of litigation" total in rural states vs. the "dollars of litigation" in the cities that Verizon tends to serve. Very interesting indeed.
What I find more interesting than the "main story" is the article at the last link in the summary.
Microsoft could walk away from Yahoo deal Precisely. If investors had wanted to entrust their dollars with Microsoft management, they would have invested in Microsoft stock, not Yahoo! stock.
Of all the web companies, Yahoo! is actually in one of the best positions to capitalize on changing standards, even moreso than Google, I think; the key word in the previous sentence being "capitalize". Perhaps one of the reasons Microsoft was/is so eager to get its hands on Yahoo is the intangible and intellectual properties, many of which currently adhere to open or freely-researchable standards. Microsoft doesn't generally tend to be a purporter of open or freely-researchable standards unless it can get its brand name or the Microsoft logo in there somewhere.
People are so conceited.
Most people, upon discovering Google Earth, want to check out their local area -- to see if their house or workplace or whatever is visible from the views or street views. It's a cool and interesting thing. However, it's also important to remember that in reality, nobody else is likely so interested in your particular little plot or slice of life and landmarks.
Among all the 6.6 or so billion people on Planet Earth, this couple are likely the only people who even noticed that particular view on that particular tract of land. Maybe somebody should tell Aaron and Christine Boring of the Pittsburgh suburb known as Franklin Park that not many people are or would even have reason to be so interested in the photogenic quality of their particular street or house.
I think frivolous lawsuits like these are why the judicial system is so backed up. The US lacks no shortage of conceited lawsuit-happy idiots.
First analysts laugh. Analysts admit need to fight. Next, analysts fight. Then analysts admit need to laugh.
Economy puts Microsoft "consultants" out of business. Heheh. Now we win!
After reading this news to my (Siamese) cat, I'm going to report that he was severely unimpressed.
+2 Informative. Wow, this is very awesome. More states should be this progressive.
I had an awful experience in my tax law classes; basically the only thing I learned was that whatever firm hired me upon graduation would most likely force me to play by their rules and require me to sign a non-compete contract. BTW H&R Block is infamous for noncompetes and doing really insane things with tax preparation fees. Anyway. Kinda doomed me into thinking I might be potentially stuck doing a job I hated, was inefficient and illogical for an unknown amount of time. (Keep in mind this tax law class took place in Utah.) That was also when I decided to avoid the CPA route like the plague. Contracts spell doom. Microsoft + Contracts spell MegaDoom.
It doesn't surprise me that the ruling cited in the blog link is Arthur Andersen, LLP. Any accounting or business undergrads please take note. Something about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act might ring a bell.
About a decade too late, Microsoft is finally seeing the light.
A recent article (registration required) in the New York Times discusses how the Redmond giant is now "giving students free access to its most sophisticated tools for writing software and making media-rich Web sites."
Ha! I would definitely disagree on the "sophisticated" adjective. Are these noble motives? Hardly. But for non-technical types, this could easily be painted as a seeming variety of evangelical philanthropy. Truth-seekers might ask: does Microsoft really care about all those poor, starving students of the Universe? And if so, why does it care now instead of before; haven't computers been around quite awhile? If (past) actions speak louder than words, the obvious answer would be "Microsoft doesn't care." This futile freebie is far too little, far too late. The computing world got along just fine before there was a Microsoft, and it will continue to get along well whether or not Microsoft does. It could probably be easily proven that the legally-laden profit-seeking motives of the MSFT corporation have actually hindered progress, especially progress of technically-inclined students.
One of the main problems with capitalism is that it is based on the assumption that every single action by every person everywhere has a monetary-based profit motive. If this were true, libraries would not exist. Indeed, in a purely profit-motivated society, freedom itself would not exist, as time itself would be handcuffed to the dollar sign; choice, the ability to research between or among alternatives, and a non time-constrained intuition are keys for progress.
A related, but somewhat tangent aside: I cannot quantify the irritation I have with my Business 2.0 magazine subscription being replaced by the megacorporate-centric Fortune magazine. The latest two editions have been severely disappointing. Business 2.0 was about innovation, ideas, progression, change for the better. Fortune had "The $100 Billion Woman" Melinda Gates on the cover for January 2008 and some corporate greed investment propaganda on the cover for February of 2008. Evil real estate people. While I can respect "rich, powerful" women, I don't really aspire to go about having dollar signs attached to my "net worth".
I sometimes wonder what direction my academic career might have taken if I'd discovered Free Open-Source Software sooner. My advocation of FOSS stands today stronger than before; it is indeed a particularly useful tool for students, teachers, professors, small-medium business owners and other efficient people of the world.
<p>Microsoft-ites wanted to "kill Google" . . . but they couldn't. So now they're attempting to kill Yahoo!, the company that gave Google bocos of it's initial funding: <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/02/1456237&from=rss">as noted during Yahoo!'s 10th birthday.</a>. Good for Yahoo! rejecting a hostile takeover attempt; the last thing it needs is to take on the burden of Microsoft's <a href="http://www.zentu.net/network/?q=node/3">inefficiency</a>, regardless of how much that might bring them pseudo-gains in stock price during the short term.</p>
<p>Something tells me Microsoft-ites will be wanting to throw more than chairs on Monday.</p>
True, also because of its significant presence in the US state of Washington, most of those Microsoft employees are able to avoid paying income tax (state income tax at least) on those salaries. Washington is one of those states that has income-tax exemptions. Isn't it so very interesting that Microsoft is not a state-centric business, but that their products are earning revenues from all US states, overseas, etc.?
Couple avoidance of a state income tax with the fact that many Washingtonians head south to Oregon for some of those lovely sales tax breaks since, well, the state of OR has no state sales tax.
I've thought before that tax accounting is a game that only the supremely wealthy can afford to play (unethically do they play the game, imho, since most of their ethics are hinged upon avoidance of litigation) and all the while do their games erode the safety and well-being of middle-class people. It could even be argued that Microsoft's "ability" to do a hostile takeover of Yahoo! is most likely resultant from the tax dollars paid by many middle-class people, written off on paper tax forms, and essentially wasted.
begin: Small digression: Of course, Semel's insane executive compensation package or whatever it was certainly didn't seem to add much value of the majority of Yahoo! stakeholders and/or shareholders during his time. Maybe if he'd agreed to less compensation, and to giving others more, Yahoo! wouldn't be having this problem. The Microsoft-centric model has the same problem with the added result that it would most likely just kill small business.
Indeed, I really hope this doesn't indicate that the way of the small business is dying if not dead, and that it's just a matter time in watching giant corporate entities eat each other alive. No matter how it's viewed from a small business perspective, this can't be good since what Microsoft is essentially offering is to pay Yahoo! to take on some of its inefficiency burden, is it not?
The unfortunate thing about the wikipedia angle is that there are far too many individuals who go in and edit or remove relevant info, calling it "linkspam" or making some kind of unfounded COI claim. Free Open-Source Software is what it is why it is. Moore's Law means that the cost of data storage is going down. The cost of managing? Not going down quite as much, especially as more people contribute, increasing the complexity factor. Managing a data warehouse is not the same as managing an actual physical warehouse of consumer goods when it comes to square feet!
Regardless whether storing or managing -- if the hosting and managing aspect is becoming too much to bear on donations alone, a funding mechanism for sustenance would eventually need to be obtained. The persons who are haughty about removing outside (offsite) links from wikipedia should realize that when the private sectors are required to compete with each other in the same ways that they are expected and required to compete with one another in the public sector, efficiency is usually obtained. Increases in usefulness and timeliness of information are also obtained. Time and energy of people is not wasted just because it can be via a dollar amount, as often happens with lengthy legal battles. And legal battles almost always involve the Principle-Agent Problem. >> nonexistant wikipedia link at this time.
Nope. This, however: 2005 DOJ Case is a somewhat related technical topic which could probably use some more discussion. Seems a bit obvious how the National Association of Realtors colludes to exploit people in many of the same ways Microsoft does! :)
Anyway. Some of the individuals removing information or links are not even originating from the correct language tree for the countries where they are. Check the "edit history" of various pages in the /en/wikipedia/ tree and notice how many edits are done by people from non-US IPs. It's not that there's anything wrong with sorting the disambiguation of acronyms, but it's a definite problem, for example, in search technology. Many seem to have a language barrier issue with understanding what exactly FOSS is about. English is one of the most technically accurate languages, imho; that's why the 'net started here. I've personally linked to a lot of information on wikipedia articles and have contributed in one manner or another to a lot of F/OSS projects, but having the project I'm managing removed and called "linkspam" when I'm not selling anything nor requesting any donations is just not cool.
I think "overpays" would be the more appropriate verb.
The accounting equation is this: Assets = Liabilites + Owners' Equity.
Is it being too obvious to point out which side of the equation is affected most by things like closed-source, lawsuit threats, FUD, etc.? There's no such thing as an efficient lawsuit.
We're advised and told to be nice and to "promote" rather than "discourage" posts. . . this thread is making this duty especially difficult. . .
Dyslexic wording in the headline? It took a moment for me to get that the title of this was *not* "ASUS Mothership Boards with Embedded Linux". Tired brain = dyslexic processing.
It's amazing how little bands or artists themselves actually get of the $12.99 - $18.99 typical selling price of an album. In grad school, I took a negotiations class and one of the mock negotiations was for a typical record label and band. . . breaking down the actual cost of the deal, the record label often makes more money per album than the band itself makes from the album, factoring in a variety of legal/inflated expenses.