Fair point, but then again they came from nowhere and became the number one console manufacturer, and even more incredibly are now cooler than Sony and Nintendo in that area.
I'm not a big fan but MS hasn't lost a decade. They got blindsided by phones and tablets, sure, but that battle is far from over.
Nonsense. Nintendo has the largest market share for game consoles. The most recent statistics shows the Wii with about 46%, Xbox at 35% and PS 3 with 18% market share.
In addition to what everyone else has said, a company will sometimes take an opportunity like this to write off a lot of other unproductive junk that's been sitting around on its balance sheets, along with the (former) asset that dominates the writeoff. I've seen this referred to as "taking the big bath."
When a company writes off several billion dollars' worth of assets and their stock doesn't go straight to hell, that's because the market understands that it's just a periodic house-cleaning event, and that future quarters will look stronger as a result.
Or the market expected it and the stock price is already reflecting that fact.
I sat and watched IO and - I just couldn't figure it out. "What does it do?" I sat there thinking. Google couldn't articulate what the Q accomplishes, how do they expect people to want to buy them? HTPC, the AppleTV, they all solve a discrete problem set. This is sort of like "hey it plugs into the wall, buy it"
What is it that Apple TV solves that Google Q doesn't?
It used to be you just had to get FTC approval for a merger.
Then the EU started to throw its weight around and got in on the act.
So now, China has to approve global mergers, too?
Is there a full list of approval authorities?
Do Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa (4 of the BRICS) also need to approve? All 200 or so countries of the world?
Or is it a game of chicken where if a podunk country says "You can't merge without our permission", a company will just say "Bye," but they can't say the same for huge markets?
Well, we live in a different world now. Companies are no longer U.S. centric and if Google-Motorola wants to sell their products in China then the merger will have to be approved by Chinese authorities. The same goes for Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa. That's the price you pay for globalism.
Well. Since ebooks seem to be priced at higher than print book prices....no. no they are not cheap at all.
The thing that people seem to forget when arguing that ebooks should be cheaper is the fact that it costs money to have a paper based book sit in inventory. Eventually the publisher and/or retailer will be willing to take a loss and sell that book at a steep discount in order to make room for a more popular book with more potential to make a sale.
Since digital books take no physical space, there is no incentive to move product out the door.
Yes it costs more to produce a paper based book, but there is a shelf life of profitability for that book. Digital works have no such liability since it's much cheaper to produce and costs next to nothing to store.
That is not true at all. There are still fix costs associated with ebooks to have to be recouped. Not to mention, ebooks have to return a certain percentage in net profits. So, there is incentive for publishers and retailers to discount ebooks in order to increase sales on laggards. Also, there is no evidence to support your thesis. I say this because I haven't seen any correlation between prices of low volume paperback and newer issues.
They finally decide to tackel the horrific affects of book publisher collution with Apple.
Yes, yes they are. Can you express why they shouldn't be doing this?
Apple provided a competing service that included letting the publishers set the final price because Apple was just running the service, not setting any prices. So the only real collusion possible would be if publishers agreed together to set a certain minimum price for ebooks in general (something not shown yet).
Have you seen the subpoena? Apple and the publishers were charged with illegal pricing scheme. Do you have enough details to support your belief that the publishers and Apple weren't in collusion?
No, a trial may not be needed to decide the facts of the case. If the DA does not have sufficient evidence to believe he/she can obtain a conviction, it is a waste of taxpayer resources to bring the case to trial. The information currently available suggests that the DA so believes. We do not have the ability to analyze the evidence well enough to determine whether or not a trial is called for. However, considering the conflicting evidence that is available to us, it seems likely that the DA would be unable to prove criminal behavior on Zimmerman's part.
Wrong. A DA reason for bringing a case to trial is not based on wither he or she can get a conviction. A DA submits a case to the Grand Jury when a crime is committed and there is evidence to support the crime. The Grand Jury's job is to determine if the evidence is enough for a trial.
The weird thing I don't get about the "stand your ground" law in this case is how it can apply to both people. By his own account, Zimmerman was chasing Martin. Zimmerman was armed with a gun and was not in a marked security vehicle or wearing any sort of uniform, nor did he identify himself in any way as being part of the neighborhood watch. If Zimmerman had never shot Martin, but Martin had been arrested for attacking Zimmerman (and I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just looking at Zimmerman's claimed version of events), then "stand your ground" should have been a viable defense for him. He was the one in fear for his life being chased by a suspicious stranger armed with a gun.
The law was badly written. The legislators who wrote the law including the chief architect of the bill all claimed that the stand your ground law was not meant to protect Zimmerman or similar cases. However, the law is written is such a way that both Zimmerman and Martin can both be right barring eyewitness evidence.
If the return on that time is not as profitable as the return on, say, developing new games for iOS, then it really doesn't matter if 5% covers development cost unless you are doing this for the love of android. This guy is probably trying his damnedest to make a living developing mobile games and he is going to take the best profit for his time he can get.
Wrong. That's not what the Economists and Cost Accountants will say. Assuming he is in the business of making money, if net revenue is going to fall from leaving Android platform then he should continue to develop for Android.
Let's look at the numbers: 20% of his development dollars is supporting 5% of sales. And the 5% is declining. Anybody who would keep developing for any platform in this environment is not a good business person.
Not necessarily. Is the 5% in sales covering development costs? If sales are not covering costs then the developer should drop the platform. If sales are covering costs then the developer should look at opportunity costs. In other words, will net revenue increase by dropping Android and investing all the money in iOS? That's for the developer to know. In the end, Android will continue to grow and attract developers.
The DEA is going after dealers and distributors, not someone carrying a joint
That's what they'd like you to believe, but I was shown a few years ago that it's bullshit. Some lady friends of mine worked for slumlords cleaning houses for a living, and I gave them a ride to collect their pay.
They got in the car and six large, armed men jumped out and surrounded us, frisked us, and searched the car. Two were local cops, two were FBI, and one was DEA -- it was printed on their clothing, just like on TV. The DEA guy wore a ski mask (in July in Illinois).
It turned out that the house they went to was rented by a drug dealer. The FBI, DEA, and local cops were laying in wait to bust people who had just bought dope from the dealer. Note they could have easily busted the dealer himself.
Of course, they let us go since there weren't any drugs, but my lack of 4th amendment protection against my car and person being searched and the fact that they were after users rather than dealers pisses me off to this day.
If they had found dope on one of you it would give them probable cause for getting a warrant to raid the house. They can't just go into the house or get a search warrant on suspicion alone. They need a valid reason. If your friends had dope on them they would have been coerced to point the finger at the drug dealer; this would be reason enough for the judge to grant a search warrant. The target was not necessarily you and your friends.
Why will WP7 phone eat into Android shares next year? WP7 phone market share has shrank to under 2%. What is going to change for WP7?
1) They are finally at near feature parity with the leader operating systems (or close enough for consumers to not reject using the phones).
2) Nokia finally has the WP7 phones coming to market
3) Now that Nokia has some really strong hardware, Microsoft has said next year they are going to have a huge WP7 push. They still have enough money and influence when they push, things can happen.
4) Microsoft will also continue to squeeze Android handset makers for money, meaning it will not cost much more for them to also build WP7 phones...
4) WP7 is gaining traction in the design and development community as having a really good system, with good tools for development.
I am currently an iOS developer. But I've been eyeing WP7 as a second platform to develop for, skipping Android entirely (even though I spent more than a decade in Java development!).
So, why is WP7 market share falling? Are you pinning your hopes for WP7 on Nokia? Nokia is losing market share left, right and center to Android. Plus WP7 is failing badly in the consumer's market. This leads me to believe that Nokia's WP7 phones will not make a dent in Apple or Android market share. Nokia has lost half of their market value this year. Smart money doesn’t believe WP7 phones will help Nokia, and I have to side with that opinion.
Microsoft already had a big WP7 marketing push. They even offer the phone for free, and the phone still failed to gain traction with consumers. WP7 phones are the proverbial day late and a dollar short.
I don't really see Androids numbers compared to Apple increasing much more as WP7 starts to eat into Android market share next year. Laugh all you want but you'll remember what I said a year from now...
Why will WP7 phone eat into Android shares next year? WP7 phone market share has shrank to under 2%. What is going to change for WP7?
Who is making more money on the total devices sold? To date, Apple, by a wide margin.
Turning to Apps Apple is still selling more apps and has more apps to sell - again by a wide margin.
What you say is true only for a narrow definition, and not one that matters to developers.
Do you have numbers to back up your claim? The reason I ask is statistics shows that 8.1 billion apps were downloaded from the Android market compared to 6 billion for Apple. Analyst projected that this lead will increase. Yes, I know that 8 billion downloads is not the same as 8 billion bought.
There are a large number of people who get their phones from their enterprise. Obviously enterprise features matter to them. Further many of the higher net worth people who were buying smart phones when they were only about 10% of the market consider exchange support a must have. During those days Android not having the feature was a break feature.
Now that isn't 95% of the market, nor is it 5% of the market. It is somewhere in between.
Yes, you may be right that enterprise market is larger than 5%. However, a phone can be successful without support from the enterprise market. Just look at the Androids phones pre 2.0.
If MS also licensed it to Apple, Android would be effectively locked out of the enterprise like it was back in the 1.5 and 1.6 days. This by itself would all but kill Android as a competing phone. Exchange support makes or breaks handsets. Even Apple came to Microsoft to get support in their devices.
Does exchange support really make or break handsets? Why would Exchange support be a make or break situation for hand sets? Think about that for a moment. As far as I can tell most smart phones in use are not synch to an Exchange server. Most smart phone users didn’t get the smart phone because the phone can synch to an Exchange email server. Also, if Exchange support was so crucial and Android 1.5 and 1.6 didn’t support Exchange how do you explain the explosive growth of the Android platform under 1.5 and 1.6? No, Exchange support is not a make or break situation for 95% of consumers.
Yeah, but at $255 per dose? On a drug that hasn't even been tested? This has "corporate handjob" written all over it.
There is a drug in manufactured in Mexico used for treating Scorpion sting. The drug cost $400 per dose in Mexico. The same drug is imported to America and cost $12,000 per dose. That’s how much the hospital charges you. Specialty drugs cost a lot of money and at $255 per dose that’s not bad at all.
Dumb-question guy here: how can a web site gather users' "internet browsing history even when the users were not logged-in to Facebook"?
By having permanent cookies whose sessions never expire in your browser. I use Firefox with NoScript so I am able to see scripts that are associated with the web pages. It seems most web sites that I visit there is a Facebook script associated with that website and that's how they track you. I permanent blocked Facebook scripts from running in my browser.
Thats what happens when mbas take over running of corporations. Everything is geared towards teaching of maximizing profit minimizing costs in those programs in ultimate end, and even if some programs incorporate engineering concepts like systems management and so on, the mba types eventually lack on strategic planning and vision.
flop. thats what you get if you hire too much suits or put them in charge.
Of course, they have to maximize profit. How else are they going to stay in business? Shareholders own the company. They (shareholders) have tens of billions invested in the company, and they need a return on their investment. Would you open a saving account at a bank that pays no interest? I doubt it. For companies to stay in business and be competitive costs have to be managed. It seems that most posters here believe costs doesn’t matter, and costs are an excuse for the “MBA” to downsize or kill projects.
I recommend looking at who's currently on the board at HP. It explains everything. There's a ridiculous number of hedge fund managers and similar type people. They've only got one real HP person on the board and that person is from enterprise marketing or something like that. No one on the board understands their products or what they do except possibly this marketing person.
You would think a company like HP would have at least a few people who've run tech companies on their board.
Do you even know the functions of the board? Do you even know who elects the board? Let me enlighten you. The board doesn’t run the company; the CEO and other top executives do. The board hires the CEO and votes on the CEO’s salary; the primary purpose of the board is to protect shareholders. The board is elected by shareholders to perform certain functions on the behalf of stockholders. Why shouldn’t hedge fund managers or other stockholders sit on the board? They own the company and who is better to safe guard their interests?
Has anyone in Redmond actually tried using GDocs? The built in functionality is on par with Office from a decade ago, and the portability of its files is on par with Works circa WFW 3.11.
Well if it is as good as Office from a decade ago (Office 2000) then it is a very good product. The organization that I work for still mostly use Office 2003 and there is nothing that we do with Office 2003 and Office 2007 that can't be done in Office 2000. Personally, I like Google Docs, but I don't think it is as robust as Office 2000 as you claim.
Nowadays I'm just guessing there's an issue with their technology, or their marketing. With all the action and the need for differentiation in the tablet market, they've only managed to sign up one, 4th-tier player. There must be something wrong, don't hold your breath.
Yep, I have been reading about Pixel Qi for the last year and a half. CNET even reported that Notion Ink will ship (in June 2010) a tablet sporting the Pixel Qi screen. A year later and Pixel Qi technology is still in the prototype stage. It seems that the technology has more short comings than is let on, and I doubt that this technology will be in any products anytime soon.
I believe Obama pointed out that we could provide as much oil as is in ANWAR by keeping our tires inflated properly.
The callous disregard by using a non sequitur is remarkable. So why aren't we drilling in ANWAR then, if we can create so much value by doing so?
We can relive more pressure faster and cheaper through conservation and that is a fact than opening up all public lands to drilling.
So why aren't we drilling in ANWAR then?
We can relive more pressure faster and cheaper through conservation and that is a fact than opening up all public lands to drilling. Set car average MPG at 50 and minimum at 30 which is doable and you'll save as much as 10 ANWARs and it can happen in a fraction of the time.
So why aren't we drilling in ANWAR then?
Here's the thing that certain people don't get. Conservation is not a perfect benefit. There are tradeoffs. That's why we don't optimally consume oil or any other resource. In addition, oil production is completely tangential to the problem of just how much oil we could save, if we chose to do so to the exclusion of every other human activity. So drilling in ANWAR is something we can do in the near future and which does not depend on conservation or its lack.
It also has an obvious economic benefit such as creating jobs and generating economic activity. And all it requires is the President to stop making smug, clueless remarks.
Geo-politics. Think global. Why should we drill in ANWAR when there is cheap oil in other places? We are going to use up the cheap oil from other countries and when it runs out we have ANWAR to fall back on. ANWAR is like having money in the bank. Also, we are not about to let China have access to cheap (Middle East) oil. If we allow that then in 15 years instead of our aircraft carries in the China Sea their aircraft carries will be in the Caribbean.
Re:High fructose corn syrup is slow acting poison.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
You do realize there's more than one kind of HFCS, right? HFCS 55 is 55% fructose which is 5% more than sucrose and is used largely in soft drinks. HFCS 42 is 42% fructose, which is about 8% LESS than sucrose and is used in most solid sweetened foods. I don't know where you're getting that 10% number.
You do realize that HFCS 55 has 10% more fructose than sucrose?
Re:High fructose corn syrup is slow acting poison.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Wow.
Oh, and for the billionth time, HFCS IS NO WORSE THAN REGULAR SUGAR. They're both fructose/glucose, only in marginally different quantities. I'll bet if you stuffed those rats full of regular ol' sugar they'd also wind up with diabetes.
You are a fucking lunatic.
People keep saying that. Are you calling a 10% difference marginal? Really. I think you need to look up the definition of marginal, because a 10% difference is a tad more than marginal. There is another difference other than the ratio of fructose to glucose. Fructose and glucose molecules are not bonded together in HFCS and passes into the blood stream much faster than with sucrose.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair point, but then again they came from nowhere and became the number one console manufacturer, and even more incredibly are now cooler than Sony and Nintendo in that area.
I'm not a big fan but MS hasn't lost a decade. They got blindsided by phones and tablets, sure, but that battle is far from over.
Nonsense. Nintendo has the largest market share for game consoles. The most recent statistics shows the Wii with about 46%, Xbox at 35% and PS 3 with 18% market share.
In addition to what everyone else has said, a company will sometimes take an opportunity like this to write off a lot of other unproductive junk that's been sitting around on its balance sheets, along with the (former) asset that dominates the writeoff. I've seen this referred to as "taking the big bath."
When a company writes off several billion dollars' worth of assets and their stock doesn't go straight to hell, that's because the market understands that it's just a periodic house-cleaning event, and that future quarters will look stronger as a result.
Or the market expected it and the stock price is already reflecting that fact.
I sat and watched IO and - I just couldn't figure it out. "What does it do?" I sat there thinking. Google couldn't articulate what the Q accomplishes, how do they expect people to want to buy them? HTPC, the AppleTV, they all solve a discrete problem set. This is sort of like "hey it plugs into the wall, buy it"
What is it that Apple TV solves that Google Q doesn't?
It used to be you just had to get FTC approval for a merger.
Then the EU started to throw its weight around and got in on the act.
So now, China has to approve global mergers, too?
Is there a full list of approval authorities?
Do Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa (4 of the BRICS) also need to approve? All 200 or so countries of the world?
Or is it a game of chicken where if a podunk country says "You can't merge without our permission", a company will just say "Bye," but they can't say the same for huge markets?
Well, we live in a different world now. Companies are no longer U.S. centric and if Google-Motorola wants to sell their products in China then the merger will have to be approved by Chinese authorities. The same goes for Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa. That's the price you pay for globalism.
The thing that people seem to forget when arguing that ebooks should be cheaper is the fact that it costs money to have a paper based book sit in inventory. Eventually the publisher and/or retailer will be willing to take a loss and sell that book at a steep discount in order to make room for a more popular book with more potential to make a sale.
Since digital books take no physical space, there is no incentive to move product out the door.
Yes it costs more to produce a paper based book, but there is a shelf life of profitability for that book. Digital works have no such liability since it's much cheaper to produce and costs next to nothing to store.
That is not true at all. There are still fix costs associated with ebooks to have to be recouped. Not to mention, ebooks have to return a certain percentage in net profits. So, there is incentive for publishers and retailers to discount ebooks in order to increase sales on laggards. Also, there is no evidence to support your thesis. I say this because I haven't seen any correlation between prices of low volume paperback and newer issues.
They finally decide to tackel the horrific affects of book publisher collution with Apple.
Yes, yes they are. Can you express why they shouldn't be doing this?
Apple provided a competing service that included letting the publishers set the final price because Apple was just running the service, not setting any prices. So the only real collusion possible would be if publishers agreed together to set a certain minimum price for ebooks in general (something not shown yet).
Have you seen the subpoena? Apple and the publishers were charged with illegal pricing scheme. Do you have enough details to support your belief that the publishers and Apple weren't in collusion?
No, a trial may not be needed to decide the facts of the case. If the DA does not have sufficient evidence to believe he/she can obtain a conviction, it is a waste of taxpayer resources to bring the case to trial. The information currently available suggests that the DA so believes. We do not have the ability to analyze the evidence well enough to determine whether or not a trial is called for. However, considering the conflicting evidence that is available to us, it seems likely that the DA would be unable to prove criminal behavior on Zimmerman's part.
Wrong. A DA reason for bringing a case to trial is not based on wither he or she can get a conviction. A DA submits a case to the Grand Jury when a crime is committed and there is evidence to support the crime. The Grand Jury's job is to determine if the evidence is enough for a trial.
The weird thing I don't get about the "stand your ground" law in this case is how it can apply to both people. By his own account, Zimmerman was chasing Martin. Zimmerman was armed with a gun and was not in a marked security vehicle or wearing any sort of uniform, nor did he identify himself in any way as being part of the neighborhood watch. If Zimmerman had never shot Martin, but Martin had been arrested for attacking Zimmerman (and I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just looking at Zimmerman's claimed version of events), then "stand your ground" should have been a viable defense for him. He was the one in fear for his life being chased by a suspicious stranger armed with a gun.
The law was badly written. The legislators who wrote the law including the chief architect of the bill all claimed that the stand your ground law was not meant to protect Zimmerman or similar cases. However, the law is written is such a way that both Zimmerman and Martin can both be right barring eyewitness evidence.
If the return on that time is not as profitable as the return on, say, developing new games for iOS, then it really doesn't matter if 5% covers development cost unless you are doing this for the love of android. This guy is probably trying his damnedest to make a living developing mobile games and he is going to take the best profit for his time he can get.
Wrong. That's not what the Economists and Cost Accountants will say. Assuming he is in the business of making money, if net revenue is going to fall from leaving Android platform then he should continue to develop for Android.
Let's look at the numbers: 20% of his development dollars is supporting 5% of sales. And the 5% is declining. Anybody who would keep developing for any platform in this environment is not a good business person.
Not necessarily. Is the 5% in sales covering development costs? If sales are not covering costs then the developer should drop the platform. If sales are covering costs then the developer should look at opportunity costs. In other words, will net revenue increase by dropping Android and investing all the money in iOS? That's for the developer to know. In the end, Android will continue to grow and attract developers.
The DEA is going after dealers and distributors, not someone carrying a joint
That's what they'd like you to believe, but I was shown a few years ago that it's bullshit. Some lady friends of mine worked for slumlords cleaning houses for a living, and I gave them a ride to collect their pay.
They got in the car and six large, armed men jumped out and surrounded us, frisked us, and searched the car. Two were local cops, two were FBI, and one was DEA -- it was printed on their clothing, just like on TV. The DEA guy wore a ski mask (in July in Illinois).
It turned out that the house they went to was rented by a drug dealer. The FBI, DEA, and local cops were laying in wait to bust people who had just bought dope from the dealer. Note they could have easily busted the dealer himself.
Of course, they let us go since there weren't any drugs, but my lack of 4th amendment protection against my car and person being searched and the fact that they were after users rather than dealers pisses me off to this day.
If they had found dope on one of you it would give them probable cause for getting a warrant to raid the house. They can't just go into the house or get a search warrant on suspicion alone. They need a valid reason. If your friends had dope on them they would have been coerced to point the finger at the drug dealer; this would be reason enough for the judge to grant a search warrant. The target was not necessarily you and your friends.
Why will WP7 phone eat into Android shares next year? WP7 phone market share has shrank to under 2%. What is going to change for WP7?
1) They are finally at near feature parity with the leader operating systems (or close enough for consumers to not reject using the phones).
2) Nokia finally has the WP7 phones coming to market
3) Now that Nokia has some really strong hardware, Microsoft has said next year they are going to have a huge WP7 push. They still have enough money and influence when they push, things can happen.
4) Microsoft will also continue to squeeze Android handset makers for money, meaning it will not cost much more for them to also build WP7 phones...
4) WP7 is gaining traction in the design and development community as having a really good system, with good tools for development.
I am currently an iOS developer. But I've been eyeing WP7 as a second platform to develop for, skipping Android entirely (even though I spent more than a decade in Java development!).
So, why is WP7 market share falling? Are you pinning your hopes for WP7 on Nokia? Nokia is losing market share left, right and center to Android. Plus WP7 is failing badly in the consumer's market. This leads me to believe that Nokia's WP7 phones will not make a dent in Apple or Android market share. Nokia has lost half of their market value this year. Smart money doesn’t believe WP7 phones will help Nokia, and I have to side with that opinion. Microsoft already had a big WP7 marketing push. They even offer the phone for free, and the phone still failed to gain traction with consumers. WP7 phones are the proverbial day late and a dollar short.
Apple and Google are
I don't really see Androids numbers compared to Apple increasing much more as WP7 starts to eat into Android market share next year. Laugh all you want but you'll remember what I said a year from now...
Why will WP7 phone eat into Android shares next year? WP7 phone market share has shrank to under 2%. What is going to change for WP7?
Android is outselling iOs.
There are more Android devices being sold. Yes.
Who is making more money on the total devices sold? To date, Apple, by a wide margin.
Turning to Apps Apple is still selling more apps and has more apps to sell - again by a wide margin.
What you say is true only for a narrow definition, and not one that matters to developers.
Do you have numbers to back up your claim? The reason I ask is statistics shows that 8.1 billion apps were downloaded from the Android market compared to 6 billion for Apple. Analyst projected that this lead will increase. Yes, I know that 8 billion downloads is not the same as 8 billion bought.
There are a large number of people who get their phones from their enterprise. Obviously enterprise features matter to them. Further many of the higher net worth people who were buying smart phones when they were only about 10% of the market consider exchange support a must have. During those days Android not having the feature was a break feature.
Now that isn't 95% of the market, nor is it 5% of the market. It is somewhere in between.
Yes, you may be right that enterprise market is larger than 5%. However, a phone can be successful without support from the enterprise market. Just look at the Androids phones pre 2.0.
If MS also licensed it to Apple, Android would be effectively locked out of the enterprise like it was back in the 1.5 and 1.6 days. This by itself would all but kill Android as a competing phone. Exchange support makes or breaks handsets. Even Apple came to Microsoft to get support in their devices.
Does exchange support really make or break handsets? Why would Exchange support be a make or break situation for hand sets? Think about that for a moment. As far as I can tell most smart phones in use are not synch to an Exchange server. Most smart phone users didn’t get the smart phone because the phone can synch to an Exchange email server. Also, if Exchange support was so crucial and Android 1.5 and 1.6 didn’t support Exchange how do you explain the explosive growth of the Android platform under 1.5 and 1.6? No, Exchange support is not a make or break situation for 95% of consumers.
Yeah, but at $255 per dose? On a drug that hasn't even been tested? This has "corporate handjob" written all over it.
There is a drug in manufactured in Mexico used for treating Scorpion sting. The drug cost $400 per dose in Mexico. The same drug is imported to America and cost $12,000 per dose. That’s how much the hospital charges you. Specialty drugs cost a lot of money and at $255 per dose that’s not bad at all.
Dumb-question guy here: how can a web site gather users' "internet browsing history even when the users were not logged-in to Facebook"?
By having permanent cookies whose sessions never expire in your browser. I use Firefox with NoScript so I am able to see scripts that are associated with the web pages. It seems most web sites that I visit there is a Facebook script associated with that website and that's how they track you. I permanent blocked Facebook scripts from running in my browser.
Thats what happens when mbas take over running of corporations. Everything is geared towards teaching of maximizing profit minimizing costs in those programs in ultimate end, and even if some programs incorporate engineering concepts like systems management and so on, the mba types eventually lack on strategic planning and vision. flop. thats what you get if you hire too much suits or put them in charge.
Of course, they have to maximize profit. How else are they going to stay in business? Shareholders own the company. They (shareholders) have tens of billions invested in the company, and they need a return on their investment. Would you open a saving account at a bank that pays no interest? I doubt it. For companies to stay in business and be competitive costs have to be managed. It seems that most posters here believe costs doesn’t matter, and costs are an excuse for the “MBA” to downsize or kill projects.
I recommend looking at who's currently on the board at HP. It explains everything. There's a ridiculous number of hedge fund managers and similar type people. They've only got one real HP person on the board and that person is from enterprise marketing or something like that. No one on the board understands their products or what they do except possibly this marketing person.
You would think a company like HP would have at least a few people who've run tech companies on their board.
Do you even know the functions of the board? Do you even know who elects the board? Let me enlighten you. The board doesn’t run the company; the CEO and other top executives do. The board hires the CEO and votes on the CEO’s salary; the primary purpose of the board is to protect shareholders. The board is elected by shareholders to perform certain functions on the behalf of stockholders. Why shouldn’t hedge fund managers or other stockholders sit on the board? They own the company and who is better to safe guard their interests?
Has anyone in Redmond actually tried using GDocs? The built in functionality is on par with Office from a decade ago, and the portability of its files is on par with Works circa WFW 3.11.
Well if it is as good as Office from a decade ago (Office 2000) then it is a very good product. The organization that I work for still mostly use Office 2003 and there is nothing that we do with Office 2003 and Office 2007 that can't be done in Office 2000. Personally, I like Google Docs, but I don't think it is as robust as Office 2000 as you claim.
1 year ago I was still kinda interested.
Nowadays I'm just guessing there's an issue with their technology, or their marketing. With all the action and the need for differentiation in the tablet market, they've only managed to sign up one, 4th-tier player. There must be something wrong, don't hold your breath.
Yep, I have been reading about Pixel Qi for the last year and a half. CNET even reported that Notion Ink will ship (in June 2010) a tablet sporting the Pixel Qi screen. A year later and Pixel Qi technology is still in the prototype stage. It seems that the technology has more short comings than is let on, and I doubt that this technology will be in any products anytime soon.
I believe Obama pointed out that we could provide as much oil as is in ANWAR by keeping our tires inflated properly.
The callous disregard by using a non sequitur is remarkable. So why aren't we drilling in ANWAR then, if we can create so much value by doing so?
We can relive more pressure faster and cheaper through conservation and that is a fact than opening up all public lands to drilling.
So why aren't we drilling in ANWAR then?
We can relive more pressure faster and cheaper through conservation and that is a fact than opening up all public lands to drilling. Set car average MPG at 50 and minimum at 30 which is doable and you'll save as much as 10 ANWARs and it can happen in a fraction of the time.
So why aren't we drilling in ANWAR then?
Here's the thing that certain people don't get. Conservation is not a perfect benefit. There are tradeoffs. That's why we don't optimally consume oil or any other resource. In addition, oil production is completely tangential to the problem of just how much oil we could save, if we chose to do so to the exclusion of every other human activity. So drilling in ANWAR is something we can do in the near future and which does not depend on conservation or its lack.
It also has an obvious economic benefit such as creating jobs and generating economic activity. And all it requires is the President to stop making smug, clueless remarks.
Geo-politics. Think global. Why should we drill in ANWAR when there is cheap oil in other places? We are going to use up the cheap oil from other countries and when it runs out we have ANWAR to fall back on. ANWAR is like having money in the bank. Also, we are not about to let China have access to cheap (Middle East) oil. If we allow that then in 15 years instead of our aircraft carries in the China Sea their aircraft carries will be in the Caribbean.
You do realize there's more than one kind of HFCS, right? HFCS 55 is 55% fructose which is 5% more than sucrose and is used largely in soft drinks. HFCS 42 is 42% fructose, which is about 8% LESS than sucrose and is used in most solid sweetened foods. I don't know where you're getting that 10% number.
You do realize that HFCS 55 has 10% more fructose than sucrose?
Wow. Oh, and for the billionth time, HFCS IS NO WORSE THAN REGULAR SUGAR. They're both fructose/glucose, only in marginally different quantities. I'll bet if you stuffed those rats full of regular ol' sugar they'd also wind up with diabetes. You are a fucking lunatic.
People keep saying that. Are you calling a 10% difference marginal? Really. I think you need to look up the definition of marginal, because a 10% difference is a tad more than marginal. There is another difference other than the ratio of fructose to glucose. Fructose and glucose molecules are not bonded together in HFCS and passes into the blood stream much faster than with sucrose.