Half the reason e-mail caught on is that it contains the word "mail." "Wave" means nothing to me. Even Lotus Notes used a name that kinda sorta hinted at what it could do, then someone coined the term groupware.
I can't believe no one's mentioned Craigslist. Classified ads have always been the bedrock of newspaper revenue, and Craigslist along with all the online real estate tools have destroyed it. The worst part is the right wing likes to blame it on the "liberal media," believing that in their fantasy world that "objective" - that is, right wing - journalism would be profitable.
From: Uk-Fay-oo-yay@gmail.com
Call me paranoid, but I have no intention of giving Google even more info about me.
I tell ya what's really crazy. You have to tell T-Mobile your HOME address and PAY THEM MONEY every month to use it!!!
---
Sent from my Android
More specifically, China does have laws about the environment on the books, but the institutions are often either too weak or too corrupt (often both) to enforce them. The earthquake is a tragic example, as many of the schools that collapsed were likely not up to code because of bribes and/or a weak inspection regiment.
Yes, but there's a lot of leeway in the meaning of "best interest." You can make the case (as Chainsaw Al once did), that companies should never give to charity. His reasoning was that the best way to give to charity was to enrich stockholders, who could then make their own donations. Obviously, Ben & Jerry's saw it differently.
This is a trivial example, but it holds true with something much more strategically important. Apple allowed licensing of this OS in the early 90s, then reversed course when Jobs came back into power. You could argue those decisions both ways -- deciding to license was bad/good for stockholders, deciding not to was bad/good -- but in neither case did the company get sued for violating their fiduciary duty.
Every now and then someone comes on here and argues that companies *have* to outsource to China because it's their fiduciary duty. Nonsense. It's a strategic decision that may or may not help the company, and the company's managers' only responsibility is to assess benefits (cost savings) and the risks (potential for bad pr or lower employee morale) and make a decision. This is why Google didn't *have* to go into China, they chose to (though I generally support that decision).
In practice, about the only time fiduciary duty comes up is when an acquisition goes bad (Microsoft/Yahoo) or, in private companies, when a partner thinks he's getting screwed and uses it as leverage in negotiations.
Even the Gospels create more confusion than they resolve. For instance, if accepting Jesus as your personal savior is critical to get into Heaven, when exactly did that occur? Was it immediately after the crucifixion, or is there a grandfather clause?
I'm pretty sure CNN wasn't around to broadcast the event to the world, so it probably took a few years before news reached, say, China, not to mention the interior of Papua New Guinea. Did all those people who didn't even know about Jesus go to Hell?
I've never met anyone who doesn't have a vested interest with huge $$$ at stake (i.e. Microsoft) seriously object to the concept of open source. I've seen some companies express reservations about support, which is sometimes justified, but not unreasonably so. A software decision always involves risks and tradeoffs, but I've never seen anyone reject software a priori because it's open source.
I'm pretty sure the US gets most of its oil from Canada and Venezuela, so your argument makes little sense.
Oil is almost as fungible as cash. The price of oil in the Middle East affects the price in Canada. So even if we don't buy directly from the Middle East, we damn sure care about what's happening there that might affect supply.
I don't think Iraq was only about oil, but energy security certainly played a huge role. If North Korea was sitting on the reserves that Iraq has, we likely would've attacked them long ago. (Of course, then they probably wouldn't be as poor as they are and thus need to scream for attention by launching missile tests over Japan.)
Criminal punishment is a loss of rights, not privileges. If you break the law, you lose certain rights except certain ones enumerated in the Consitution (i.e. the right not to be subjected to cruel & unusual punishment).
I'm damn sure never going to do business in Saudi Arabia
So you don't buy gasoline? You don't ride buses that buy gasoline? You don't fly on airplanes that use oil products?
Even if that gas you buy doesn't come from Saudi Arabia, it's price is affected by world markets. You would have to buy the equivalent of "fair trade" gasoline at a significant premium to avoid doing business with the Saudis.
I think Saudi Arabia is odious, but I don't pretend I'm actually doing anything about it. By driving a car I'm helping the problem continue.
Because they could crush our economy by unloading that paper and their dollar reserves on the open market?
This would be mutual assured destruction. Dumping all that paper would not just hurt our economy, it would severely damage theirs as well, putting millions of Chinese people out of work.
China, the socialist paradise, doesn't even have unemployment insurance. Something this disruptive would lead to large mass protests that make Tibet look like a raucous city council meeting.
Most people don't know that there are already thousands of public protests in China every year, mostly around property rights (or lack thereof). Yes, it's a repressive regime, but not as totalitarian as some people thing.
"I will allow you to track it and to use it in house, but the moment a third party touches it or you attempt to sell it, I want a share of the profits."
"I will give you my content for free, but the moment you make any money off it I want a share of the profits. I'm talking to you, Warren Buffet."
Actually, I hate the practice of seling to third parties too, just pointing out that this is a circular argument.
+1 to that. I switched to the Mac 18 months ago after about 15 years on Windows. While I now feel it's way easier to use than Windows, the first two weeks were hell, particularly keyboard shortcuts.
Sorry to inject Mac fanboyism into a Linux thread...
I seriously doubt the Airforce has good IT personnel.
And no wonder. 50 years ago the best and the brightest wanted to work for the likes of Edward Teller and Robert Oppenheimer. Now they'd prefer to go work for Sergey and Larry.
As an example, you will see zero corporate logos on athlete equipment - it's completely forbidden at the the Olympics,
Sort of... In 1992 there was a bit of a kefluffle among the Dream Team because they were forced to wear Reebok gear. Many of the players (Michael Jordan most prominently) were Nike-sponsored athletes and didn't want to wear it. They ended up coming up with some way to hide the Reebok logo on those athletes.
> international economic sanctions HELPED BRING DOWN APARTHEID
And that's working real well in Cuba & Zimbabwe, eh?
China has problems, some of them serious, but its citizens are far better off economically and politically than 40 years ago, when they had no economic integration with the West (including the USSR, with whom they were considering nuclear war) and were the source of a steady stream North Korea style rhetoric.
Now there are thousands of public protests every year, an unthinkable concept in the days of Mao. This is still a long way from democracy, but the government is definitely more responsive to its citizenry than pre-Deng Xiaopeng.
Ask any Chinese citizen. I have -- my wife is from there and we have lots of Chinese friends on the mainland and in the US. One friend who moved here because of Tiananmen Square has since moved back to China because life has improved so much there.
South Africa was easier in a sense because an entire race was disenfranchised both politically and economically. If you were black, you had the moral high ground; if you were white, you were bad. This is not the case in China.
Again, what have you done for the poor in the last year?
I'm an atheist. I haven't believed in God or gone to church for over twenty years. And I volunteer at a center to help the mentally ill. Many of these people are homeless, all of them are poor, and most are just one "episode" away from being committed.
Most church members I know give a massive amount of cash and time for the poor.
Good for them, but do they need an ancient, terribly sourced, gay-hating, slavery-loving, wildly self-contradicting book to tell them to do that?
Some of the most effective poverty-relief organizations in the Middle East are run by US-designated terrorist organizations like Hamas. What is it Christians say? "Hate the sin and love the sinner." In this case I'm quite willing to applaud them for helping the poor, but I hate them for teaching that the world is run by magic (and especially that the Big Magician in the sky tells them to commit suicide).
I don't think Christian fundamentalism is anywhere near as noxious as Islamic radicalism, but it's nonetheless a cultural disease.
Point of order: in Mandarin Chinese they refer to the tragedy at Tiananmen Square as 6-4 (pronounced i>liu si in Mandarin) because it happened on June 4th. It's similar to the way we refer to the MLK "I have a dream" speech as the March on Washington rather than the National Mall. Notice the lack of info about the speech in the second link. Is that censorship? Nope, just culture.
That said, China definitely censors search results about 6-4.
The generation of youngsters that is pushing these Social Networks into prominence have the attention span of a crack-addled butterfly. They will flit about and land on the next thing soon enough, and then, after they are done with it, the corporations will notice and will invest in it a couple of years after its lost its prominence. Ask a teen. Any teen.
Herewith the 1995 version, from my boss back then:
The generation of youngsters that is pushing this Internet thing into prominence have the attention span of a crack-addled butterfly. They will flit about and land on the next thing soon enough, and then, after they are done with it, the corporations will notice and will invest in it a couple of years after its lost its prominence. Ask a teen. Any teen.
You didn't day anything that can be argued with facts. You merely implied that his ideas are so bad they wouldn't make it through econ 101. That's empirically false since many of the people who write the textbooks for and teach econ 101 believe he should win a Nobel prize.
And what's wrong with arguing from authority? Should I instead just uncritically accept the opinion of some jackass on Slashdot? Especially one who seems to believe that what he allegedly learned in econ 101 trumps the consensus of the rest of the profession? Next up: Steve Ballmer is a genius and Linus Torvalds is just a socialist hacker.
Slashdot Mirror
Half the reason e-mail caught on is that it contains the word "mail." "Wave" means nothing to me. Even Lotus Notes used a name that kinda sorta hinted at what it could do, then someone coined the term groupware.
George Bush I?
I can't believe no one's mentioned Craigslist. Classified ads have always been the bedrock of newspaper revenue, and Craigslist along with all the online real estate tools have destroyed it. The worst part is the right wing likes to blame it on the "liberal media," believing that in their fantasy world that "objective" - that is, right wing - journalism would be profitable.
From: Uk-Fay-oo-yay@gmail.com Call me paranoid, but I have no intention of giving Google even more info about me. I tell ya what's really crazy. You have to tell T-Mobile your HOME address and PAY THEM MONEY every month to use it!!! --- Sent from my Android
More specifically, China does have laws about the environment on the books, but the institutions are often either too weak or too corrupt (often both) to enforce them. The earthquake is a tragic example, as many of the schools that collapsed were likely not up to code because of bribes and/or a weak inspection regiment.
Yes, but there's a lot of leeway in the meaning of "best interest." You can make the case (as Chainsaw Al once did), that companies should never give to charity. His reasoning was that the best way to give to charity was to enrich stockholders, who could then make their own donations. Obviously, Ben & Jerry's saw it differently.
This is a trivial example, but it holds true with something much more strategically important. Apple allowed licensing of this OS in the early 90s, then reversed course when Jobs came back into power. You could argue those decisions both ways -- deciding to license was bad/good for stockholders, deciding not to was bad/good -- but in neither case did the company get sued for violating their fiduciary duty.
Every now and then someone comes on here and argues that companies *have* to outsource to China because it's their fiduciary duty. Nonsense. It's a strategic decision that may or may not help the company, and the company's managers' only responsibility is to assess benefits (cost savings) and the risks (potential for bad pr or lower employee morale) and make a decision. This is why Google didn't *have* to go into China, they chose to (though I generally support that decision).
In practice, about the only time fiduciary duty comes up is when an acquisition goes bad (Microsoft/Yahoo) or, in private companies, when a partner thinks he's getting screwed and uses it as leverage in negotiations.
Even the Gospels create more confusion than they resolve. For instance, if accepting Jesus as your personal savior is critical to get into Heaven, when exactly did that occur? Was it immediately after the crucifixion, or is there a grandfather clause?
I'm pretty sure CNN wasn't around to broadcast the event to the world, so it probably took a few years before news reached, say, China, not to mention the interior of Papua New Guinea. Did all those people who didn't even know about Jesus go to Hell?
I've never met anyone who doesn't have a vested interest with huge $$$ at stake (i.e. Microsoft) seriously object to the concept of open source. I've seen some companies express reservations about support, which is sometimes justified, but not unreasonably so. A software decision always involves risks and tradeoffs, but I've never seen anyone reject software a priori because it's open source.
Oil is almost as fungible as cash. The price of oil in the Middle East affects the price in Canada. So even if we don't buy directly from the Middle East, we damn sure care about what's happening there that might affect supply.
I don't think Iraq was only about oil, but energy security certainly played a huge role. If North Korea was sitting on the reserves that Iraq has, we likely would've attacked them long ago. (Of course, then they probably wouldn't be as poor as they are and thus need to scream for attention by launching missile tests over Japan.)
That you say this on Slashdot, which is essentially a blog ("Here's a story that hacks me off. Discuss!"), is the height of irony.
Criminal punishment is a loss of rights, not privileges. If you break the law, you lose certain rights except certain ones enumerated in the Consitution (i.e. the right not to be subjected to cruel & unusual punishment).
So you don't buy gasoline? You don't ride buses that buy gasoline? You don't fly on airplanes that use oil products?
Even if that gas you buy doesn't come from Saudi Arabia, it's price is affected by world markets. You would have to buy the equivalent of "fair trade" gasoline at a significant premium to avoid doing business with the Saudis.
I think Saudi Arabia is odious, but I don't pretend I'm actually doing anything about it. By driving a car I'm helping the problem continue.
This would be mutual assured destruction. Dumping all that paper would not just hurt our economy, it would severely damage theirs as well, putting millions of Chinese people out of work.
China, the socialist paradise, doesn't even have unemployment insurance. Something this disruptive would lead to large mass protests that make Tibet look like a raucous city council meeting.
Most people don't know that there are already thousands of public protests in China every year, mostly around property rights (or lack thereof). Yes, it's a repressive regime, but not as totalitarian as some people thing.
"I will allow you to track it and to use it in house, but the moment a third party touches it or you attempt to sell it, I want a share of the profits."
"I will give you my content for free, but the moment you make any money off it I want a share of the profits. I'm talking to you, Warren Buffet."
Actually, I hate the practice of seling to third parties too, just pointing out that this is a circular argument.
I'd agree it has familiarity on it's side
+1 to that. I switched to the Mac 18 months ago after about 15 years on Windows. While I now feel it's way easier to use than Windows, the first two weeks were hell, particularly keyboard shortcuts.
Sorry to inject Mac fanboyism into a Linux thread...
I seriously doubt the Airforce has good IT personnel.
And no wonder. 50 years ago the best and the brightest wanted to work for the likes of Edward Teller and Robert Oppenheimer. Now they'd prefer to go work for Sergey and Larry.
Sort of... In 1992 there was a bit of a kefluffle among the Dream Team because they were forced to wear Reebok gear. Many of the players (Michael Jordan most prominently) were Nike-sponsored athletes and didn't want to wear it. They ended up coming up with some way to hide the Reebok logo on those athletes.
> international economic sanctions HELPED BRING DOWN APARTHEID
And that's working real well in Cuba & Zimbabwe, eh?
China has problems, some of them serious, but its citizens are far better off economically and politically than 40 years ago, when they had no economic integration with the West (including the USSR, with whom they were considering nuclear war) and were the source of a steady stream North Korea style rhetoric.
Now there are thousands of public protests every year, an unthinkable concept in the days of Mao. This is still a long way from democracy, but the government is definitely more responsive to its citizenry than pre-Deng Xiaopeng.
Ask any Chinese citizen. I have -- my wife is from there and we have lots of Chinese friends on the mainland and in the US. One friend who moved here because of Tiananmen Square has since moved back to China because life has improved so much there.
South Africa was easier in a sense because an entire race was disenfranchised both politically and economically. If you were black, you had the moral high ground; if you were white, you were bad. This is not the case in China.
Again, what have you done for the poor in the last year?
I'm an atheist. I haven't believed in God or gone to church for over twenty years. And I volunteer at a center to help the mentally ill. Many of these people are homeless, all of them are poor, and most are just one "episode" away from being committed.
Most church members I know give a massive amount of cash and time for the poor.
Good for them, but do they need an ancient, terribly sourced, gay-hating, slavery-loving, wildly self-contradicting book to tell them to do that?
Some of the most effective poverty-relief organizations in the Middle East are run by US-designated terrorist organizations like Hamas. What is it Christians say? "Hate the sin and love the sinner." In this case I'm quite willing to applaud them for helping the poor, but I hate them for teaching that the world is run by magic (and especially that the Big Magician in the sky tells them to commit suicide).
I don't think Christian fundamentalism is anywhere near as noxious as Islamic radicalism, but it's nonetheless a cultural disease.
According to the Supreme Court, greenhouse gases are pollutants.
Point of order: in Mandarin Chinese they refer to the tragedy at Tiananmen Square as 6-4 (pronounced i>liu si in Mandarin) because it happened on June 4th. It's similar to the way we refer to the MLK "I have a dream" speech as the March on Washington rather than the National Mall. Notice the lack of info about the speech in the second link. Is that censorship? Nope, just culture.
That said, China definitely censors search results about 6-4.
The generation of youngsters that is pushing these Social Networks into prominence have the attention span of a crack-addled butterfly. They will flit about and land on the next thing soon enough, and then, after they are done with it, the corporations will notice and will invest in it a couple of years after its lost its prominence. Ask a teen. Any teen.
Herewith the 1995 version, from my boss back then:
The generation of youngsters that is pushing this Internet thing into prominence have the attention span of a crack-addled butterfly. They will flit about and land on the next thing soon enough, and then, after they are done with it, the corporations will notice and will invest in it a couple of years after its lost its prominence. Ask a teen. Any teen.
You didn't day anything that can be argued with facts. You merely implied that his ideas are so bad they wouldn't make it through econ 101. That's empirically false since many of the people who write the textbooks for and teach econ 101 believe he should win a Nobel prize.
And what's wrong with arguing from authority? Should I instead just uncritically accept the opinion of some jackass on Slashdot? Especially one who seems to believe that what he allegedly learned in econ 101 trumps the consensus of the rest of the profession? Next up: Steve Ballmer is a genius and Linus Torvalds is just a socialist hacker.
NEXT!
An unexpected health crisis us one of the leading causes of bankruptcy.