The main update page about this case, at the DoJ website lists quite a few standards.
And isn't this interesting?
The filing also notes that, as Microsoft was never found to have acquired or increased its monopoly market share unlawfully, the final judgments were not designed to eliminate Microsoft's Windows monopoly or reduce Windows' market share by any particular amount. Rather, the final judgments were designed to re-invigorate competitive conditions that Microsoft had suppressed so that the market could determine the success of these software products. The final judgments are succeeding in that goal.
Ha! How exactly does an entity "increase" its monopoly share? By making its monopoly bigger? By slapping the Microsoft Windows logo on practically every OEM hardware component or vendor it can get its sticker on? By throwing up barriers to entry? By threatening any competitors with lawsuits about supposed patented code?
Sounds pretty unlawful to me. But I, for one, have ethics.
How many people actually need wi-fi? I'd wager damned near close to nobody. It's a luxury, a convenience that helps some people, but is not really a necessity. The purpose of cities is to focus on providing necessities -- trash removal, water, roads, polic, schools, etc.
Perhaps no specific person needs wi-fi, but it seems as though it is one of those things that, when provided on a large scale, lowers the cost of the service for everybody: both public-works people and private citizens. How? Economies of scale built into the overall infrastructure. Not to mention efficiency.
Regarding some of the "necessities" mentioned -- police and roads: maintenance of, hazards on, congestion of, accidents, etc. are all things that citizens "pay" for in tax dollars. Quick notification and response time is good (efficient) for everybody on the roads, emergency response, etc. Regarding schools: books and supplies are always one of the things that teachers are worried about funding, not to mention one of the things that a significant amount of tax goes toward paying. A blanket wi-fi, that just happened to include a school or two, could certainly contribute toward lowering costs incurred by those schools.
Given the big picture, what it boils down to is *logical* cost-benefit analysis. There's already a lot of redundancy into the tax laws of the US regarding just how much we pay and for what in taxes and excise taxes and 911 services and such. Private providers are just going to charge people taxes that the government would anyway. Why make the argument that people should pay more?
It really is like water: running your sprinklers all night after it has rained all day.
Imagine if all the gasoline stations in city X were to "help" each other keep the price of gasoline artificially high in order for them all to profit . . . sure, the consumer -- with his/her limited knowledge of information or choices thinks that a $0.0x (pennies) difference really isn't *that* much, and isn't too picky about choosing between the few gasoline stations available. But in city Y, which is a little bigger than city X, gasoline stations differ by $0.xx (10+ cents) per gallon, and thus consumers drive all the way to the end of the city to save the $0.xx, even though it might not really be "worth" it to do so.
This Microsoft/Novell thing really is not that different. Competition -- and only genuine, non-fixed, non-collusive competition between entities is in the best interest of the consumer. Indeed, I think it could be argued that one of the only legitimate purposes of a government should be to prevent such collusion between or among entities. I think that this little complicity between M$ and Novell spells all kinds of bad news.
The least desirable scenario is for Microsoft to benefit/profit from/soak up any of the good-vibes associated with Linux. And any kind of "partnership" with M$ -- whether corporate or community -- would do just that. The "corporate vs. community" headline is misleading. It is not and should not be a matter of fragmenting Linux developers or potential end-users according to corporate or community motives.
Being 'corporate' is not necessarily bad for Linux. Indeed, I think the only way any Linux entity can possibly hope to compete with or gain any significant market share from M$ is by playing on the same type of field -- albeit an economic business-oriented field. I have made this analogy before, and I shall make it again: If operating systems were burgers, M$ Windows (or Vista) would be like the cheap (as in quality), easy, greasy Big Mac of OSes. Works fine for some people, but surely there's market demand for something a little more gourmet.
Agreed! I attended Zemlin's talk at the Linux World Expo, and if he was indeed being "sarcastic" about respecting Microsoft, it was a pretty well-cloaked sarcasm. I didn't really think about it like he was endorsing "respect" for M$ as an entity, per se, but that people should be able to see and therefore "respect" that there are some things that Microsoft does . . . well, well. If it didn't do *something* well, it wouldn't be the giant (*cough* tax-evading-Washington-state-does-not-have-income- tax) monolithic monstrosity that it is.
Taking the analogy a bit further (in genuine/. fashion) maybe it could be likened to. . . McDonalds. M$ Windows is like the Big Mac of OSes. "Billions and billions" served, eh? Of course! Works for the impatient, lazy few who need their fix of fast food. Given that there is indeed demand for cheap, fast food, go right ahead -- scarf that Big Mac. Keep in mind, however, that demand for cheap, fast food does not exclude demand for a quality product . . . there is still room for a gourmet version of not-so-fast food (as in quality > quantity). This is where Linux and OSS companies and organizations can and should focus, imho.
Hmmm. "If your operating system were a burger. ..":)
A couple of months ago, I found myself at an airport in Nevada. While waiting for my flight, I had some time to hang out while I was waiting for my flight to start boarding. I booted my laptop and found that the only wireless signal available to me was a weak one, through (but of course) T-Mobile, via a nearby Starbucks in the airport. And as we all know, T-Mobile sucks. Ah, so if I want to get on this super-special "HotSpot" network, I have to first justify going in and purchasing something from Starbucks (in order to get a decent signal), just to have a legitimate or seemingly "legal" reason to sit down and boot my laptop inside a Starbucks. Assume a normal, relatively sane person does so, only to discover that:
_After_ purchasing coffee ((or some other beverage) that he/she didn't even want) as a means to get what he/she assumed to be a decent "wifi" signal, he/she is given a "welcome page" by T-Mobile, telling him/her that they can purchase a 24 (or whatever) hour "pass" for the network!
Now, assuming that the coffee (or some other beverage) is not really what the person wanted, the person has essentially been hoodwinked into paying twice for the one thing he/she really wanted, which was just a wireless internet connection.
The government operates the same way when it fails to regulate monopoly power. I believe there's something in marketing related to this idea. . . something like "bait and switch". . .
Here is part of the problem, as mentioned in the article:
For example, data gathered by Web sites neglects to identify computers that are operated behind proxies, or even Squid... In fact, that certain Web sites were designed to reject access from every Web browser other than Internet Explorer. As a result, many Linux users are forced to pretend (by altering HTTP headers) that they use a typical Windows setup. This is known as spoofing or forging and it is a matter of convenience.
Darn those proxy servers being all. . . convenient and whatnot.
Perhaps a better question than "what do you do?" first thing in the morning would be "what _can_ you do?" Hmm. Considering that I'm just a lowly underpaid IT intern where I work, and considering the fact that I always seem to show up for work before the IT manager himself, I would imagine that I can (and do) accomplish quite a bit. Maybe I should also mention that I am also the only one in the company (an IRA investment firm w/ primarily Microsoft servers -- hint-hint) who happens to be running a Linux server. Self-installed, patched, checked, and double-checked it has been. One LinuxBox on a completely zombie M$ network!
But anyway.
I don't drink coffee any more. When I get to work, I check email, the Samba workgroup / the network logs, and the "RSS" folder feeds from my completely customizable web-browser toolbar (of which/. and boing-boing and digg and ITMJ [among others] are a part). They're all mad props for fighting the good fight.
Life is all kinds of awesome for people who aren't locked into Microsoft licensing contracts. I really hope that the better part of the world figures this out, some day sooner than later. Hopefully sooner.
Indeed, information wants to be as free as possible.
Microsoft wants information to be as expensive as possible. Companies that build their IT infrastructure upon M$ products are essentially locking themselves into feeding their own inefficiency. . . it's amazing how many companies seem to think that purchasing a certain kind of M$-based software is going to solve all of their problems. It's expensive; therefore, it must be good logic does not compute for efficiency!
Re:Bizarre Install Failure on my Thinkpad
on
Fedora 7 Released
·
· Score: 1
Try burning a compile of it without the SELinux options. They seemingly created a bunch of problems in FC5, related to network bootstrap options. Maybe also check that you have the install configured correctly, the/dev/sd0 vs dev/sd1
in other words, the (hd0/hd1) thing that's sometimes isn't always so obvious.
I don't necessarily disagree. Probably the missing "chunks" were part of advertisements.
OSS -- the Internet itself will never be free from advertisements, just as public television or radio airwaves are not free from commercial or political interests.
The difference, I think, comes from the idea that there should be or is a monetary difference between importance of the three: free, commercial, or political info -- monetary being the key word. If you want/expect free info/code, you're likely to get what you pay for: essentially nothing.
True, and what Macintosh (Apple) does well is advertise. Unix and linux are the best of both worlds: I think of the platform something like. . . Microsoft OSes without JavaScript and Macintosh OSes without buggy or slow-loading code. I think one of the main reasons for slow or buggy pages/programs is excessive advertising. This is why I think flash media and popups have always been a no-no in elegant/unbugged code.
Interesting argument. How much of the "work" do you consider to be "end user" vs. "developers" with (for example) pet projects? And what of your consideration about hosting? When hosting is taken into consideration there are almost always a myriad of factors that change in the context of text vs. pictures, vs (for example) "streaming video"; I'm not quite understanding this Tivo analogy.
IMHO, open source is just open source. It's analogous to watching an episode of, say,
The Colbert Report and being able to read the transcript, as it was spoken, online. Some of it might be scripted, but the best scripting is just accidential.
eek
Information wants to be as free as possible. Advertisers want information to be as expensive as possible. The Internet kinda turns the model of traditional publishing "inside out" in that it does not discriminate between the two: information can be advertising, and advertising can be information. Most advertising is useless, hyped, glam. There are some companies that have built their entire brand off of advertising alone.
I think one of the things that has to happen in order for information (even, say, life-saving information which has been discovered by scientists and people like that) to be as free as possible is for the concept of "agents as gatekeepers" to cease. Any time agents (agents are advertisers, by default) are involved, everything gets artificially inflated. Rarely do the people who should benefit actually obtain any benefit when agencies are involved; my employment/career search has proven this to me.
Quickbooks is a joke; sadly, it's one most people who run small businesses don't get, and I'd venture it's one of the reasons for that statistic that 2/3 small businesses fail. It's really sad when entrepreneurs who start small businesses fail because of some messed up glitch in the tax system. Bureaucracy is not efficient. The more inefficient a bureaucracy, the more expensive and costly it is to all people affected by the bureaucracy. Small businesses, by definition, are struggling too hard to stay afloat to have problems with bureaucracy issues that plague large organizations or entities. Most professionals don't use Quickbooks. Unless you want your IT infrastructure to have more latency.
People who start small businesses often have some unique product or widget (pun intended). Most of them don't have extensive training in accounting, so they think "Accounting! That's something I have to do as a small business owner." So they go look for accounting software for their computers. Or, they hope for the day they'll be large enough to justify the expense of hiring an accountant.
Like most people who have computers purchased or ordered with the Microsoft OS pre-installed, they have been brainwashed regarding security threats and can become paralyzed with paranoia regarding software installation. But they still continue to cling to the Microsoft way; they do so because they don't know any better or that the essential concept of "competition" among businesses and how competition is facilitated by innovation and hindered by lack of information. But who competes with Microsoft? Perhaps I'm idealist, but I really think there should be another option for people who don't want to feed the big dudes in corporate and governmental bureaucracy or the marketing hype and associated with the iPod generation.
Quickbooks is set up to be idiot-friendly, run like an installation disk . . . like people who go to have their taxes done by H&R Block or Jackson-Hewitt sit through an interview process or "consultation" are essentially just answering questions they could answer online. Tax accounting is the least logical form of any accounting.
(Interesting side-note: the last place I interviewed for a job, it became OBVIOUS to me that the person interviewing me had not even read my resume, which she obtained online, or the "questionnaire" I'd subsequently filled out at her company's request prior to her interviewing me. That interview went bad fast.) Why should people be subjected to such redundancy? Hey, if you can read and type and comprehend, you've got some marketable skills. Headhunters don't like me when I tell them I prefer to not print out my resume, as it's easily available and viewable just as I have formatted it online.)
The people at the top of the income brackets usually try to figure out some way to keep people working in the lowest income brackets working in those low income brackets for as long as possible using various tax deductions. I've heard from the mouth of one CPA (former inlaw -- reason for the formerness of the relationship; would you be interested to know that he is married to a realtor?) something quite unethical regarding printing out of receipts which do not exist in order to claim the tax deduction and for the purpose of "itemizing deductions"! And they do it because they think they can get away with it at the expense of the less fortunate, all the while claiming a "tax deduction"!
It's ultimately a glass-houses issue. Before overt, draconian security measures are put in place, everything else ought to be locked up already. Otherwise, it just makes the IT department look like they're power-tripping, regardless of the real motivation. And in the corporate world, it's not good to make everyone else hate you. Particularly the secretaries.
This is where you dudes need to wise up.
Admit to the world that your secretaries/receptionists are usually hired for looks, not talent, in the corporate world. Young, hopeful female slashdotters -- read this with verity, but determination.
Being a female IT-oriented MBA and having worked for and been interviewed by various temp agencies, I can attest 'tis true: female secretaries hate people more intelligent/qualified than they are; they especially hate it when they come across females who are more intelligent/qualified than they are to do the exact same work, and *especially* hate those they come across to do the "more qualified work". Such females go out of their way to "talk &hit" and perform other rudeness for any potential competitors for their job. Young, hopeful female slashdotters -- read this with verity, but determination. If you are able to be taken advantage of for your area expertise at a sub-par wage, _YOU WILL_ be taken advantage of at a sub-par wage because you are a female, especially if your boss is an old, crotechty female.
Temp agencies operate on the assumption that it's quite obvious that most female receptionists with supposed telephone and "customer service" skills couldn't create a web-page, let alone a website, without some assistance and if their life depended upon it. Ah, smart dudes like dumb chicks, eh?
After having worked for one and been interviewed by another of two distinctive "100-percent femaled owned" "secretary/receptionist" temp companies (companies claimed I was "overqualified" as a means for firing/not hiring me), it's true, but only to an extent. . . usually the old bloated and crotechty midlife-crisis women hate the new generation of tech-oriented females as much as they hate the fact that they themselves are getting old and unable to keep up with the new trends and technology of this generation.
Lessig wrote:
"Can last-mile broadband be developed in a way that doesn't rely on the incentives that drive current providers toward innovation-stifling business models?"
Diminishing marginal returns apply to expenditures for R&D as well. Nobody would disagree that societies are becoming more advanced as time goes on, however, the rate at which companies are able to realize returns on that increase in "innovation" is not able to keep up -- learning curves apply as well, especially ESPECIALLY when companies must pay competent people to answer questions asked by incompetent people.
This is why people whining about outsourcing irk me to no end. I've worked at a company where I had to take technical support calls, and the utter idiocy of so many people is mind-boggling. If you can't figure something out, look it up in a book or online or in the manual that came with the product you purchased that you can't figure out how to get to work. People do have hobby interests on which they spend massive amounts of time or and/or money. Last time I checked, time wasn't powered by money.
Automation of tasks -- like Lessing wrote about automated Tax Returns! -- gives people more time to spend doing things they enjoy doing, more "free time" as an economic reward.
A longer piece written a big ago defending net neutrality: here.
So funding to study complexity is being decreased while complexity is increasing? All the while, the money that would have gone to science is being tied up and squandered humhawing about why science should not be funded.
I'm terrified as well.
I wouldn't worry about bankruptcy. The entire Google-culture seems a little too level-headed for it to go bankrupt any time soon. Bankruptcy is usually preceded by corporate extravagance at the managerial level; Larry and Sergey seem to be too "down-to-earth" and practical to promote an atmosphere where that would happen.
Besides, it's about time some entity (powerful enough) attempted to compete on the level that PayPal on their level. Competition is good.
I noticed that the main page has been revamped recently. Rather than featuring the giant metropolis areas: Atlanta, Phoenix, Boston, Dallas, etc, it now lists the United States' states next to international. One extra click -- most people don't think twice about when navigating to specifically-sought information. Seems a smart move.
The $500 million _is_ just an estimate. I wonder what the analyst's assumptions were by the statement "a couple of ads." Text ads, box ads, or even (ugh) macromedia flash advertisements. . . ? The online advertisement industry analysis requires a plethora of variables, all of which are slight and not entirely measurable, especially when "cost per click" vs. "revenue per click" are involved.
Precisely. And the fact that OSS allows a user the freedom to block obtrusive ads, customize to personal taste and generally have control over their machines is why I migrated and never looked back.
Interesing that this is a story on/. today, since recently did I write a little something about
How on Earth can Anybody Compete with Microsoft?
Michael Crichton's _State of Fear_ examines this question. Interesting story; but ultimately, his fictional perspective (as thoroughly researched as it was) is somewhat biased.
Slashdot Mirror
The main update page about this case, at the DoJ website lists quite a few standards.
And isn't this interesting?
from here.Ha! How exactly does an entity "increase" its monopoly share? By making its monopoly bigger? By slapping the Microsoft Windows logo on practically every OEM hardware component or vendor it can get its sticker on? By throwing up barriers to entry? By threatening any competitors with lawsuits about supposed patented code?
Sounds pretty unlawful to me. But I, for one, have ethics.
Perhaps no specific person needs wi-fi, but it seems as though it is one of those things that, when provided on a large scale, lowers the cost of the service for everybody: both public-works people and private citizens. How? Economies of scale built into the overall infrastructure. Not to mention efficiency.
Regarding some of the "necessities" mentioned -- police and roads: maintenance of, hazards on, congestion of, accidents, etc. are all things that citizens "pay" for in tax dollars. Quick notification and response time is good (efficient) for everybody on the roads, emergency response, etc. Regarding schools: books and supplies are always one of the things that teachers are worried about funding, not to mention one of the things that a significant amount of tax goes toward paying. A blanket wi-fi, that just happened to include a school or two, could certainly contribute toward lowering costs incurred by those schools.
Given the big picture, what it boils down to is *logical* cost-benefit analysis. There's already a lot of redundancy into the tax laws of the US regarding just how much we pay and for what in taxes and excise taxes and 911 services and such. Private providers are just going to charge people taxes that the government would anyway. Why make the argument that people should pay more?
It really is like water: running your sprinklers all night after it has rained all day.
Microsoft "helping" Novell should be illegal. . .
Imagine if all the gasoline stations in city X were to "help" each other keep the price of gasoline artificially high in order for them all to profit . . . sure, the consumer -- with his/her limited knowledge of information or choices thinks that a $0.0x (pennies) difference really isn't *that* much, and isn't too picky about choosing between the few gasoline stations available. But in city Y, which is a little bigger than city X, gasoline stations differ by $0.xx (10+ cents) per gallon, and thus consumers drive all the way to the end of the city to save the $0.xx, even though it might not really be "worth" it to do so.
This Microsoft/Novell thing really is not that different. Competition -- and only genuine, non-fixed, non-collusive competition between entities is in the best interest of the consumer. Indeed, I think it could be argued that one of the only legitimate purposes of a government should be to prevent such collusion between or among entities. I think that this little complicity between M$ and Novell spells all kinds of bad news.
The least desirable scenario is for Microsoft to benefit/profit from/soak up any of the good-vibes associated with Linux. And any kind of "partnership" with M$ -- whether corporate or community -- would do just that. The "corporate vs. community" headline is misleading. It is not and should not be a matter of fragmenting Linux developers or potential end-users according to corporate or community motives.
Being 'corporate' is not necessarily bad for Linux. Indeed, I think the only way any Linux entity can possibly hope to compete with or gain any significant market share from M$ is by playing on the same type of field -- albeit an economic business-oriented field. I have made this analogy before, and I shall make it again: If operating systems were burgers, M$ Windows (or Vista) would be like the cheap (as in quality), easy, greasy Big Mac of OSes. Works fine for some people, but surely there's market demand for something a little more gourmet.
Taking the analogy a bit further (in genuine /. fashion) maybe it could be likened to. . . McDonalds. M$ Windows is like the Big Mac of OSes. "Billions and billions" served, eh? Of course! Works for the impatient, lazy few who need their fix of fast food. Given that there is indeed demand for cheap, fast food, go right ahead -- scarf that Big Mac. Keep in mind, however, that demand for cheap, fast food does not exclude demand for a quality product . . . there is still room for a gourmet version of not-so-fast food (as in quality > quantity). This is where Linux and OSS companies and organizations can and should focus, imho.
Hmmm. "If your operating system were a burger. . ." :)
Consider this real-world example:
A couple of months ago, I found myself at an airport in Nevada. While waiting for my flight, I had some time to hang out while I was waiting for my flight to start boarding. I booted my laptop and found that the only wireless signal available to me was a weak one, through (but of course) T-Mobile, via a nearby Starbucks in the airport. And as we all know, T-Mobile sucks. Ah, so if I want to get on this super-special "HotSpot" network, I have to first justify going in and purchasing something from Starbucks (in order to get a decent signal), just to have a legitimate or seemingly "legal" reason to sit down and boot my laptop inside a Starbucks. Assume a normal, relatively sane person does so, only to discover that:
_After_ purchasing coffee ((or some other beverage) that he/she didn't even want) as a means to get what he/she assumed to be a decent "wifi" signal, he/she is given a "welcome page" by T-Mobile, telling him/her that they can purchase a 24 (or whatever) hour "pass" for the network!
Now, assuming that the coffee (or some other beverage) is not really what the person wanted, the person has essentially been hoodwinked into paying twice for the one thing he/she really wanted, which was just a wireless internet connection.
The government operates the same way when it fails to regulate monopoly power. I believe there's something in marketing related to this idea. . . something like "bait and switch". . .
But anyway.
I don't drink coffee any more. When I get to work, I check email, the Samba workgroup / the network logs, and the "RSS" folder feeds from my completely customizable web-browser toolbar (of which /. and boing-boing and digg and ITMJ [among others] are a part). They're all mad props for fighting the good fight.
Life is all kinds of awesome for people who aren't locked into Microsoft licensing contracts. I really hope that the better part of the world figures this out, some day sooner than later. Hopefully sooner.
Indeed, information wants to be as free as possible. Microsoft wants information to be as expensive as possible. Companies that build their IT infrastructure upon M$ products are essentially locking themselves into feeding their own inefficiency. . . it's amazing how many companies seem to think that purchasing a certain kind of M$-based software is going to solve all of their problems. It's expensive; therefore, it must be good logic does not compute for efficiency!
Try burning a compile of it without the SELinux options. They seemingly created a bunch of problems in FC5, related to network bootstrap options. Maybe also check that you have the install configured correctly, the /dev/sd0
vs
dev/sd1
in other words, the (hd0/hd1) thing that's sometimes isn't always so obvious.
I don't necessarily disagree. Probably the missing "chunks" were part of advertisements.
OSS -- the Internet itself will never be free from advertisements, just as public television or radio airwaves are not free from commercial or political interests.
The difference, I think, comes from the idea that there should be or is a monetary difference between importance of the three: free, commercial, or political info -- monetary being the key word. If you want/expect free info/code, you're likely to get what you pay for: essentially nothing.
Interesting argument. How much of the "work" do you consider to be "end user" vs. "developers" with (for example) pet projects? And what of your consideration about hosting? When hosting is taken into consideration there are almost always a myriad of factors that change in the context of text vs. pictures, vs (for example) "streaming video"; I'm not quite understanding this Tivo analogy.
IMHO, open source is just open source. It's analogous to watching an episode of, say, The Colbert Report and being able to read the transcript, as it was spoken, online. Some of it might be scripted, but the best scripting is just accidential. eek
Information wants to be as free as possible. Advertisers want information to be as expensive as possible. The Internet kinda turns the model of traditional publishing "inside out" in that it does not discriminate between the two: information can be advertising, and advertising can be information. Most advertising is useless, hyped, glam. There are some companies that have built their entire brand off of advertising alone.
I think one of the things that has to happen in order for information (even, say, life-saving information which has been discovered by scientists and people like that) to be as free as possible is for the concept of "agents as gatekeepers" to cease. Any time agents (agents are advertisers, by default) are involved, everything gets artificially inflated. Rarely do the people who should benefit actually obtain any benefit when agencies are involved; my employment/career search has proven this to me.
People who start small businesses often have some unique product or widget (pun intended). Most of them don't have extensive training in accounting, so they think "Accounting! That's something I have to do as a small business owner." So they go look for accounting software for their computers. Or, they hope for the day they'll be large enough to justify the expense of hiring an accountant.
Like most people who have computers purchased or ordered with the Microsoft OS pre-installed, they have been brainwashed regarding security threats and can become paralyzed with paranoia regarding software installation. But they still continue to cling to the Microsoft way; they do so because they don't know any better or that the essential concept of "competition" among businesses and how competition is facilitated by innovation and hindered by lack of information. But who competes with Microsoft? Perhaps I'm idealist, but I really think there should be another option for people who don't want to feed the big dudes in corporate and governmental bureaucracy or the marketing hype and associated with the iPod generation.
Quickbooks is set up to be idiot-friendly, run like an installation disk . . . like people who go to have their taxes done by H&R Block or Jackson-Hewitt sit through an interview process or "consultation" are essentially just answering questions they could answer online. Tax accounting is the least logical form of any accounting. (Interesting side-note: the last place I interviewed for a job, it became OBVIOUS to me that the person interviewing me had not even read my resume, which she obtained online, or the "questionnaire" I'd subsequently filled out at her company's request prior to her interviewing me. That interview went bad fast.) Why should people be subjected to such redundancy? Hey, if you can read and type and comprehend, you've got some marketable skills. Headhunters don't like me when I tell them I prefer to not print out my resume, as it's easily available and viewable just as I have formatted it online.)
The people at the top of the income brackets usually try to figure out some way to keep people working in the lowest income brackets working in those low income brackets for as long as possible using various tax deductions. I've heard from the mouth of one CPA (former inlaw -- reason for the formerness of the relationship; would you be interested to know that he is married to a realtor?) something quite unethical regarding printing out of receipts which do not exist in order to claim the tax deduction and for the purpose of "itemizing deductions"! And they do it because they think they can get away with it at the expense of the less fortunate, all the while claiming a "tax deduction"!
If a company -- moreover a "staffing company or agency!" -- doesn't even have a website, or if that website has a glaringly amateur webpage spelling error for one of the most important words to people seeking work in their specific , I think there's a reason for concern.
So, and Why On Earth is there a technically-literate class of homeless people in this country?
Lessig wrote: "Can last-mile broadband be developed in a way that doesn't rely on the incentives that drive current providers toward innovation-stifling business models?" Diminishing marginal returns apply to expenditures for R&D as well. Nobody would disagree that societies are becoming more advanced as time goes on, however, the rate at which companies are able to realize returns on that increase in "innovation" is not able to keep up -- learning curves apply as well, especially ESPECIALLY when companies must pay competent people to answer questions asked by incompetent people. This is why people whining about outsourcing irk me to no end. I've worked at a company where I had to take technical support calls, and the utter idiocy of so many people is mind-boggling. If you can't figure something out, look it up in a book or online or in the manual that came with the product you purchased that you can't figure out how to get to work. People do have hobby interests on which they spend massive amounts of time or and/or money. Last time I checked, time wasn't powered by money. Automation of tasks -- like Lessing wrote about automated Tax Returns! -- gives people more time to spend doing things they enjoy doing, more "free time" as an economic reward. A longer piece written a big ago defending net neutrality: here.
BSD: "Berkeley Software Distro" or IOA: "Insert Other Acronym" ?
So funding to study complexity is being decreased while complexity is increasing? All the while, the money that would have gone to science is being tied up and squandered humhawing about why science should not be funded. I'm terrified as well.
I wouldn't worry about bankruptcy. The entire Google-culture seems a little too level-headed for it to go bankrupt any time soon. Bankruptcy is usually preceded by corporate extravagance at the managerial level; Larry and Sergey seem to be too "down-to-earth" and practical to promote an atmosphere where that would happen. Besides, it's about time some entity (powerful enough) attempted to compete on the level that PayPal on their level. Competition is good.
I noticed that the main page has been revamped recently. Rather than featuring the giant metropolis areas: Atlanta, Phoenix, Boston, Dallas, etc, it now lists the United States' states next to international. One extra click -- most people don't think twice about when navigating to specifically-sought information. Seems a smart move.
The $500 million _is_ just an estimate. I wonder what the analyst's assumptions were by the statement "a couple of ads." Text ads, box ads, or even (ugh) macromedia flash advertisements. . . ? The online advertisement industry analysis requires a plethora of variables, all of which are slight and not entirely measurable, especially when "cost per click" vs. "revenue per click" are involved.
Precisely. And the fact that OSS allows a user the freedom to block obtrusive ads, customize to personal taste and generally have control over their machines is why I migrated and never looked back. Interesing that this is a story on /. today, since recently did I write a little something about
How on Earth can Anybody Compete with Microsoft?
Michael Crichton's _State of Fear_ examines this question. Interesting story; but ultimately, his fictional perspective (as thoroughly researched as it was) is somewhat biased.
Err. . . typo. IT was on CNBC this morning, prior to opening bell. CNBC will likely get the transcript posted on its web site later today.