Second, a monopoly means that no-one can buy or use a product or service type by anyone other than a specific company. Ma Bell had a monopoly on phone service. There wasn't an alternative. There are zillions of alternatives to the iPod. The iPod is just really, really popular. That doesn't make it a monopoly.
Sorry, that's not the Slashdot and Judge Jackson definition of a monopoly.
I've watched movies in LA, where the tickets were half-price or free (I don't remember too well) and at the end you had to fill out a short survey about the movie. They show the same movie with alternate endings or other plot twists and based on the audience feedback, decide what to go with. This is really not unusual - maybe they did a better job of publicising it and expanded it to more cities.
Have you seen the movie ads where they say at the end "Now playing in New York and LA. Showing everywhere starting "? That's the same thing.
The Enterprise Engineering Center is an internal lab, not a deployment environment. The primary purpose of that lab is to allow select customers to visit and test Microsoft apps in a realistic deployment scenario similar to their own, with representatives of product teams available on hand to help iron out any deployment or functional issues.
From the picture, my best guess is that it was taken when Sun was visiting to work on interoperability scenarios there.
I'm not saying they didn't buy that equipment to use in their farms - just that this is not the picture to prove it.
Hacking an internal product to make it work is generally frowned upon at Microsoft. If you need the app to behave a certain way, there is a good chance that other customers would too so the right thing to do is to send that feedback back to the product group so they can fix the product. Which is not to say that IT will never use special hacks to get something to work the way they want to, just that there is a resistance to doing so.
You, sir, are clueless. Everytime I force quit an app on my Panther box, I have the option to send the crash log to Apple. So no, they are not the only OS vendor out there who does this.
The individual members of the board or any employee of the company is free to do whatever they want with their own resources and time. When it comes to company assets, however, the board has a fiduciary responsibility to maintain shareholder value. Members of the board or company executives do NOT have the right to use the companies name or resources to promote their personal agendas, if that infringes upon the shareholders interests. The company does not BELONG to them. It belongs to the shareholders and if they are not acting in the shareholders interests, what they are doing is illegal.
Most of us here believe that Bush, for example, does not have the right to use the nations resources to pursue his own personal agendas. This would be the same thing. Unless they have explicit permission from the shareholders, they do not have the right to dilute shareholder value, regardless of how noble they perceive their cause to be. In fact, shareholders could possibly sue them and win if they were to go ahead with this and if it caused them to lose significant revenue.
So what you're saying is that to pay the Christian Coalition for its support rendered back in 2000, Microsoft first supported a bill backing Gay Rights and then withdrew support from it as payback?
Wouldn't a better way to pay it back be to not get involved in the first place - like every other company out there?
At least they tried to get a Gay Rights bill passed - which is more than we can say for most other companies.
No. Microsoft is not going to go towards a "don't ask, don't tell" environment. I'm pretty sure they don't care about attracting the kind of talent who would be scared away by their "being gay is OK" stance. All they have done is drop out of the battle for public legislation on the issue. That doesn't mean they have changed their stance on the subject.
Microsoft continues to be a huge supporter of gay rights. Withdrawing support from one piece of legislation (there's no reason they should have been involved in it in the first place and they are not opposing it, they are just withdrawing from the battle) does not suddenly make them "supporters of religious conservativism". They are a business. If an activity they indulge in, which is unrelated to their business, has the potential to cause them to lose a large amount of their business, it's the responsible thing to do to not let that happen.
I didn't see Apple or IBM or Google or any of the other companies Slashdotters love, offer any support to any gay rights legislation. Microsoft is the only one that did, and now, sadly, they are being forced to withdraw from the battle.
You are correct. Putin will be forced to remove curbs on his citizens, free up the press and media and hasten the democratization process and Russia, i.e. the former Soviet Union will indeed look like the US in the 50's with freedom of speech and press.
Were you born yesterday? The term "activist judge" has been around long before the Bush administration.
The judges are supposed to interpret the constitution. Period. They are not tasked with "protecting the minority from the majority" or any other purpose you dreamed up. I'd suggest reading the constitution some day. The task of protecting the minority from the tyrrany of the majority goes to the constitution and the rules set in place for amending it.
The term activist judges applies to judges who rule based on what THEY think the law should be - not on what it is. The task of amending the constitution and making laws belongs to the legislature who is elected for this specific purpose. Specific rules have been defined in the constitution for how this should be done. The judiciary is not entrusted with this responsibility.
Just because you like the decisions a particular set of judges make, doesn't make it right or constitutional.
No, they are not influencing news organizations in the US. They are influencing news organizations who have reporters in India. Since those news organizations are the ones originating these news stories, the words they use stick.
This is not particular to this conflict. The same story is being played in Iraq. A female news anchor who insisted on calling the terrorists there terrorists, instead of insurgents was recently shot to death. Any journalists who use the word terrorist to describe them become targets. Journalists working for news organizations that refer to them as terrorists also become terrorits. The CNNs former director Robert Jordan had confessed that CNN would suppress stories about Saddam's atrocities in order to protect their employees in Iraq.
I lived in Bombay at that time. Actually there was a lot of tension and communal riots before the bomb blasts in Bombay.
It's almost as if the bomb blasts had the opposite effect. There was a very eery calm and absence of violence and reaction in the aftermath of the bombs. The people of Bombay decided not to be cowed by the terrorists and to defy them. Attendance in offices the next day was actually higher than it was during typical days. The blood banks were overflowing within hours after the attacks and they actually had to ask people not to show up to donate blood.
These people used to be called terrorists - until they resorted to killing whoever called them that. No news organization will now use the word terrorist to describe them because if they do, they will kill whichever member of that news organization they can get their hand on. The same is true of the terrorists in Iraq who are going around killing innocent citizens to further their agenda and spread terror - Iraqi news organizations are forced to call them "insurgents" rather than the terrorists that they are because members of the news media in Iraq have a habit of turning up dead when they use the word terrorist to describe these people.
Slashdot Mirror
Second, a monopoly means that no-one can buy or use a product or service type by anyone other than a specific company. Ma Bell had a monopoly on phone service. There wasn't an alternative. There are zillions of alternatives to the iPod. The iPod is just really, really popular. That doesn't make it a monopoly.
Sorry, that's not the Slashdot and Judge Jackson definition of a monopoly.
An unemployed mathematician meets an employed mathematician.
Q: What does the employed mathematician say to the unemployed mathematician?
A: Do you want fries with that?
We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills.
Hey, sounds like our last family vacation!
What's the difference? You're their all-time best seller!
I've watched movies in LA, where the tickets were half-price or free (I don't remember too well) and at the end you had to fill out a short survey about the movie. They show the same movie with alternate endings or other plot twists and based on the audience feedback, decide what to go with. This is really not unusual - maybe they did a better job of publicising it and expanded it to more cities.
Have you seen the movie ads where they say at the end "Now playing in New York and LA. Showing everywhere starting "? That's the same thing.
That's the Enterprise Engineering Center.
The Enterprise Engineering Center is an internal lab, not a deployment environment. The primary purpose of that lab is to allow select customers to visit and test Microsoft apps in a realistic deployment scenario similar to their own, with representatives of product teams available on hand to help iron out any deployment or functional issues.
From the picture, my best guess is that it was taken when Sun was visiting to work on interoperability scenarios there.
I'm not saying they didn't buy that equipment to use in their farms - just that this is not the picture to prove it.
Hacking an internal product to make it work is generally frowned upon at Microsoft. If you need the app to behave a certain way, there is a good chance that other customers would too so the right thing to do is to send that feedback back to the product group so they can fix the product. Which is not to say that IT will never use special hacks to get something to work the way they want to, just that there is a resistance to doing so.
I thought it was just a fake rumor on Slashdot!
You, sir, are clueless. Everytime I force quit an app on my Panther box, I have the option to send the crash log to Apple. So no, they are not the only OS vendor out there who does this.
The individual members of the board or any employee of the company is free to do whatever they want with their own resources and time. When it comes to company assets, however, the board has a fiduciary responsibility to maintain shareholder value. Members of the board or company executives do NOT have the right to use the companies name or resources to promote their personal agendas, if that infringes upon the shareholders interests. The company does not BELONG to them. It belongs to the shareholders and if they are not acting in the shareholders interests, what they are doing is illegal.
Most of us here believe that Bush, for example, does not have the right to use the nations resources to pursue his own personal agendas. This would be the same thing. Unless they have explicit permission from the shareholders, they do not have the right to dilute shareholder value, regardless of how noble they perceive their cause to be. In fact, shareholders could possibly sue them and win if they were to go ahead with this and if it caused them to lose significant revenue.
So what you're saying is that to pay the Christian Coalition for its support rendered back in 2000, Microsoft first supported a bill backing Gay Rights and then withdrew support from it as payback?
Wouldn't a better way to pay it back be to not get involved in the first place - like every other company out there?
At least they tried to get a Gay Rights bill passed - which is more than we can say for most other companies.
No. Microsoft is not going to go towards a "don't ask, don't tell" environment. I'm pretty sure they don't care about attracting the kind of talent who would be scared away by their "being gay is OK" stance. All they have done is drop out of the battle for public legislation on the issue. That doesn't mean they have changed their stance on the subject.
Microsoft continues to be a huge supporter of gay rights. Withdrawing support from one piece of legislation (there's no reason they should have been involved in it in the first place and they are not opposing it, they are just withdrawing from the battle) does not suddenly make them "supporters of religious conservativism". They are a business. If an activity they indulge in, which is unrelated to their business, has the potential to cause them to lose a large amount of their business, it's the responsible thing to do to not let that happen.
I didn't see Apple or IBM or Google or any of the other companies Slashdotters love, offer any support to any gay rights legislation. Microsoft is the only one that did, and now, sadly, they are being forced to withdraw from the battle.
It's three years maximum.
Well, not exactly. It's a very cool hack. My #1 feature request is to link it to Google's satellite maps also.
Looks like they slashdotted http://caltechvsmit.com
You are correct. Putin will be forced to remove curbs on his citizens, free up the press and media and hasten the democratization process and Russia, i.e. the former Soviet Union will indeed look like the US in the 50's with freedom of speech and press.
That's not what you meant, though, is it?
Since when did producing a passport become the equivalent of a cavity search?
Idiotic statements like yours lead me to believe you are uneducated and don't understand the horrors that the Soviets put their citizens through.
It's hard to find conservative people stupid enough to pay $8.95 a pop for something they could do themselves for free.
How does bullshit like this get modded up?
Were you born yesterday? The term "activist judge" has been around long before the Bush administration.
The judges are supposed to interpret the constitution. Period. They are not tasked with "protecting the minority from the majority" or any other purpose you dreamed up. I'd suggest reading the constitution some day. The task of protecting the minority from the tyrrany of the majority goes to the constitution and the rules set in place for amending it.
The term activist judges applies to judges who rule based on what THEY think the law should be - not on what it is. The task of amending the constitution and making laws belongs to the legislature who is elected for this specific purpose. Specific rules have been defined in the constitution for how this should be done. The judiciary is not entrusted with this responsibility.
Just because you like the decisions a particular set of judges make, doesn't make it right or constitutional.
No, they are not influencing news organizations in the US. They are influencing news organizations who have reporters in India. Since those news organizations are the ones originating these news stories, the words they use stick.
This is not particular to this conflict. The same story is being played in Iraq. A female news anchor who insisted on calling the terrorists there terrorists, instead of insurgents was recently shot to death. Any journalists who use the word terrorist to describe them become targets. Journalists working for news organizations that refer to them as terrorists also become terrorits. The CNNs former director Robert Jordan had confessed that CNN would suppress stories about Saddam's atrocities in order to protect their employees in Iraq.
I lived in Bombay at that time. Actually there was a lot of tension and communal riots before the bomb blasts in Bombay.
It's almost as if the bomb blasts had the opposite effect. There was a very eery calm and absence of violence and reaction in the aftermath of the bombs. The people of Bombay decided not to be cowed by the terrorists and to defy them. Attendance in offices the next day was actually higher than it was during typical days. The blood banks were overflowing within hours after the attacks and they actually had to ask people not to show up to donate blood.
These people used to be called terrorists - until they resorted to killing whoever called them that. No news organization will now use the word terrorist to describe them because if they do, they will kill whichever member of that news organization they can get their hand on. The same is true of the terrorists in Iraq who are going around killing innocent citizens to further their agenda and spread terror - Iraqi news organizations are forced to call them "insurgents" rather than the terrorists that they are because members of the news media in Iraq have a habit of turning up dead when they use the word terrorist to describe these people.
Will the second story in time interfere with the first one?
... how people travel in India.