I thought the same thing, I doubt a human would have such a low failure rate.
Why wasn't a human reviewing each of the videos? If a human was reviewing the videos for which takedown notices were sent, how did they not notice the obvious, such as parody clips featuring different actors?
Whether it's 60 of 100, 60 of 100,000 or 60 of 1x10^9, those 60 are still abuses of the DMCA and should be treated as such, including liability for Viacom.
Is it really their histories? Considering that even their parents' and grandparents' generations weren't in power when most of those wars were started?
If you are an investor in Google right now, especially if you didn't get in real early (and who but the insiders did?), you had better hope that not only does revenue NOT drop off, but that growth doesn't slow either because you are going to need some pretty powerful revenue growth to come out ahead at $400+ per share on P/E ratio of 40+.
Agreed, which is why I no longer directly hold GOOG shares (though some of the funds I'm holding have shares, I'm sure).
If the business cannot earn at least $1 plus prime interest rate or 10 year treasury rate (4.45% currently) then that dollar should be returned to the shareholders in dividends after all of the expenses have been paid. Reinvestment is not always a good idea, it depends upon the current economic climate and the potential returns. The fact that Google has 11 Bn cash reserves is immaterial to this point.
But this point is immaterial to my point. The OP was talking about failure of their business model, and unsustainability of growth, which has little to do with whether or not GOOG is overvalued, or whether GOOG is a good investment. I was simply pointing out that Google's business model is not in danger of collapsing and that the growth is sustainable.
What Google should do is a choice from what they are able to do. And what they are able to do includes adding employees at a phenomenal rate while continuing to depend on advertising for revenue, regardless of whether it's optimal.
I currently work in magazine publishing (but am getting out). With the exception of scholarly journals, magazines are simply vehicles for advertising, and most magazines throw their advertisers a bone by promoting their products within editorial content.
As for the environmental impacts, you're right, though I suspect that the inks and coatings do more environmental harm than the pulp-for-paper harvest.
Actually, the summery said, "her spectrograph cost less than $500 dollars". Have you any idea how much a 500-dollar dollar is worth? Her spectrograph costs less than at least two of them!
Actually, we have no idea of the possible values of $500. Furthermore, we have no idea why the author would have used a text string to represent a numerical value.
If you wish to avoid looking like a jackass, use complete sentences if you wish to pick on someone's grammar. Or better yet, do not bother correcting someone's grammar when it is immaterial to the point they are making.
I would be astonished if Google can sustain their business model and rate of growth for much longer.
Why? What's wrong with their business model, why would it fail? Their revenues are increasing, and search-related advertising is hardly going to disappear -- never mind their expansion into other types of advertising.
As for rate of growth, define growth. You mean rate of employee growth? Sure, exponential growth is unsustainable. But with gross profits over 6 Bn on revenue over 10 Bn, I think they've got pockets deep enough to continue to hire freely -- never mind the cash reserves of 11 Bn.
Think about it. If they pay $200,000 annually (incl benefits) for good employees, they can still hire 30,000 of those people while still turning a gross profit. Assuming, of course, that their revenues don't drop off, which would run counter to almost every analyst's predictions.
Historically, the English, French, and German governments have each started more wars than the U.S. government.
The world is a lot different than it was 300 years ago, 150 years ago, even 70 years ago. Furthermore, you're mistaken about the German government starting more wars than the US. I suggest you bone up on your European history.
What is important is what is happening in this era.
Besides, "b-b-b-but so-and-so did it first" doesn't excuse bad behavior.
The sooner the US military takes off the white gloves when dealing with the enemy, the sooner we will win
Because pink gloves work much bettter.
Define enemy.
Yahoos like you would have us embroiled in WWIII with us as the "bad guys" within a year.
Personnally, I think that a few volunteer gun clubs would pacify things tremendiously and permanently in these areas.
Sure. A few gun clubs against well-equipped locals who know the land, the language, and the culture. Do you read the news? Do you know anything about the history of Afhghanistan? These are not some local yokels waiting for some idiotic American cowboy to ride in on the dawn and rescue them from some despot. These are battle-hardened, experienced guerrilla fighters.
Good luck with that, may I suggest that you be the first to go?
We have asked your piano tuner to forward this letter to you in advance of our filing lawsuit against you in federal court for copyright infringement under the auspices of the recently passed Copyright Act for Analog Playback (CrAAP). We represent a number of large record companies, including SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group, as well as all of their subsidiaries ("Record Companies,") in perusing claims of copyright infringement against individuals who have illegally played copyrighted works on their pianos to an audience.
We have gathered evidence that you have been infringing copyrights owned by the Record Companies. We are attaching to this letter a sample of the sheet music found in your stool drawer. In total, you were found to be potentially playing to an audience 321 songs, a substantial number of which are songs controlled by the Record Companies.
The reason we are sending you this letter to you in advance of filing suit is to give you the opportunity to settle these claims are early as possible. If you contact us within the next twenty (20) calendar days with proof that you have destroyed any mecxhanism for the analog playback of potentially copyrighted music, we will offer to settle the claims for a significantly reduced amount compared to the judgment amount a court may enter against you...
IF WE DO NOT HEAR FROM YOU IN TWENTY (20) DAYS WE WILL FILE SUIT AGAINST YOU IN FEDERAL COURT.
Complaining about governments while ignoring all the other witnesses to your actions is shortsighted (much like the great outdoors is an open system. I see you!).
For me, though, freedom from government oppression is far more important than whether joe blow or $COMPANY can view my activity. Sure, data privacy (with special concerns for identity theft, etc) is important, but I don't think there's any single privacy issue more important than freedom of speech, which depends on anonymity when oppressive governments forbid it.
Can be found here, is linked to within the first link provided in the summary.
One of the most interesting criteria for a new internet, to me, was criteria #7:
Support anonymity where prudent, and accountability where necessary.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems true anonymity is becoming more and more important, and less and less available, as governments snoop more on the internet.
Maybe you've mistaken me for someone who doesn't work with the banking industry.
Actually, it takes time because after the check is given to the bank, it has to clear the bank that the check is written against
Which is extremely fast since Check 21 passed and was implemented -- did you miss the comments about electronic processing of checks? Check validation typically now takes less than an hour.
Now they use an electronic process, but I'm certain that many small banks have not fully updated their systems yet.
Under Check 21, banks (or intermediate handlers) truncate a check into an electronic image. Banks without the capability to handle checks fully electronically print an IRD (Image Replacement Document), a subsititute check, that they handle like the original check. This can then be truncated again by the next handler. What this means is that even though a small bank on the issuing side or the receiving side of the check that only uses paper documents doesn't slow the process much, since the intermediaries are almost all fully electronic.
Why does it take a check 7-10 days to be cleared? Is that the ping time between Bank of America and the issuing bank? No, but this system still works largely the same way it has for 1000 years. People, actual humans with eyes, check the numbers. I doubt this will change for a long time. Bank brass doesn't like the idea of removing that human "safeguard".
Not at all. People don't check the numbers, scanning equipment does that. Checks take 3-5 days to clear because your bank makes money off the float (the time between when they receive the money and they give it to you).
And what the hell is a philosophical empiricist? How would one test a philosophical theory?
Philosopher: I think, therefore I am. Empiricist clocks philosopher upside the head and knocks him out cold Empiricist: Nope. Still there.
Since empirical and philosophical are mutually exclusive, one would think that if an philosophical empiricist existed, we would enter some kind of twilight zone where military intelligence would make sense...
It's also possible to store hydrogen in a stable solid matrix using oxygen. There are some limitations on temperature (IIRC, the maximum temperature is something like 273 K) as well as a lot of issues with toxicity. In addition, most of the energy stored in H2 is used up by adding the oxygen to the hydrogen.
There are, however, plenty of advantages to the oxygen-hydrogen storage matrix, the most significant of which is that it can also be used to chill a refeshing potent potable.
Not so. If it is defined by the characteristics of property, and has value, then it falls within economic systems. You can't separate ownership from capitalism, regardless of whether the concept of ownership is something defined by law (as with IP), or by physical possession (as with small material goods), or by titular possession (as with large material goods).
To all those of you saying that cybersquatting is simply the result of the free market, well you are wrong. It is the result of improper pricing for domains in the first place. All short or word-like domains should have been priced higher. When prices are too low, a shortage will result -- as it has.
To all those of you saying that cybersquatting is simply the result of the free market, well you are wrong.
You're right, it's not simply the result of the free market. It is, however, partly the result of a free market.
It is the result of improper pricing for domains in the first place.
Not at all. There are plenty of commodities available for next to nothing in the physical realm, which are in short supply due to limitations on who may collect the goods (like land ownership), whose prices are high due to market forces. Claimsquatters looking for seams of precious metals are in the same boat as domain squatters, yet no one would argue that claimsquatting was not a result of the free market; nor would one argue that land speculation is not a result of the free market.
It is the result of improper pricing for domains in the first place.
Also a factor, but this is not exlusionary to the market forces that cause the value to be so high. In fact, the domains wouldn't be improperly priced if it weren't for market forces.
When prices are too low, a shortage will result -- as it has.
Domain names are not a commodity, one cannot simply subsititute one domain name for another and have them be equivalent products. You can't extrapolate that low prices caused a shortage in this case. If you did want to consider domain names a commodity, then you'd have to say that they are priced too high, since the supply of them is infinite -- they should be free.
Also, Microsoft has a legitimate interest is removing cybersquatters,
Yes, they have an interest. Legitimacy is another concern; if free market capitalism were to really apply, there is no question of legitimacy, only of interest.
as do we all, because quite a few of these (appart from other issues) are phishing or pushing crapware (or just advertizing, but that is acceptable in my book)
Phishing: Agreed. Pushing crapware: Caveat Emptor
Also, holding domains captive results in crappier names for everyone, which is a bad thing
Why a bad thing? In the long run, crappy domain names for everyone means that domain names will become less important for branding, which means less dependence on English, less dependence on getting the best domain name for your organization or person -- which frees us all up to spend more resources on other things. The whole domain registry system is broken, and the sooner domain names lose their relevance[1], the better.
[1] As is already happening, as people increasing use Google or other search engines as portals.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether it's 60 of 100, 60 of 100,000 or 60 of 1x10^9, those 60 are still abuses of the DMCA and should be treated as such, including liability for Viacom.
As an individual, yes. As an 'American', no, we all have to deal with what our government does.
Whoosh. Did you miss the sarcasm dripping from my post?
But this point is immaterial to my point. The OP was talking about failure of their business model, and unsustainability of growth, which has little to do with whether or not GOOG is overvalued, or whether GOOG is a good investment. I was simply pointing out that Google's business model is not in danger of collapsing and that the growth is sustainable.
What Google should do is a choice from what they are able to do. And what they are able to do includes adding employees at a phenomenal rate while continuing to depend on advertising for revenue, regardless of whether it's optimal.
I currently work in magazine publishing (but am getting out). With the exception of scholarly journals, magazines are simply vehicles for advertising, and most magazines throw their advertisers a bone by promoting their products within editorial content.
As for the environmental impacts, you're right, though I suspect that the inks and coatings do more environmental harm than the pulp-for-paper harvest.
No, solider implies that it cannot be soldered. It is solider than solid.
On a state-of-matter scale of 1 to 10 (1 being gaseous, 10 being completely solid) this one goes up to 11.
Then you, sir, have come to the wrong place.
I keed, I keed.
Why? What's wrong with their business model, why would it fail? Their revenues are increasing, and search-related advertising is hardly going to disappear -- never mind their expansion into other types of advertising.
As for rate of growth, define growth. You mean rate of employee growth? Sure, exponential growth is unsustainable. But with gross profits over 6 Bn on revenue over 10 Bn, I think they've got pockets deep enough to continue to hire freely -- never mind the cash reserves of 11 Bn.
Think about it. If they pay $200,000 annually (incl benefits) for good employees, they can still hire 30,000 of those people while still turning a gross profit. Assuming, of course, that their revenues don't drop off, which would run counter to almost every analyst's predictions.
What is important is what is happening in this era.
Besides, "b-b-b-but so-and-so did it first" doesn't excuse bad behavior.
Define enemy.
Yahoos like you would have us embroiled in WWIII with us as the "bad guys" within a year.
Sure. A few gun clubs against well-equipped locals who know the land, the language, and the culture. Do you read the news? Do you know anything about the history of Afhghanistan? These are not some local yokels waiting for some idiotic American cowboy to ride in on the dawn and rescue them from some despot. These are battle-hardened, experienced guerrilla fighters.
Good luck with that, may I suggest that you be the first to go?
Dear Sir,
We have asked your piano tuner to forward this letter to you in advance of our filing lawsuit against you in federal court for copyright infringement under the auspices of the recently passed Copyright Act for Analog Playback (CrAAP). We represent a number of large record companies, including SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group, as well as all of their subsidiaries ("Record Companies,") in perusing claims of copyright infringement against individuals who have illegally played copyrighted works on their pianos to an audience.
We have gathered evidence that you have been infringing copyrights owned by the Record Companies. We are attaching to this letter a sample of the sheet music found in your stool drawer. In total, you were found to be potentially playing to an audience 321 songs, a substantial number of which are songs controlled by the Record Companies.
The reason we are sending you this letter to you in advance of filing suit is to give you the opportunity to settle these claims are early as possible. If you contact us within the next twenty (20) calendar days with proof that you have destroyed any mecxhanism for the analog playback of potentially copyrighted music, we will offer to settle the claims for a significantly reduced amount compared to the judgment amount a court may enter against you...
IF WE DO NOT HEAR FROM YOU IN TWENTY (20) DAYS WE WILL FILE SUIT AGAINST YOU IN FEDERAL COURT.
Sincerely, Douchebag McNumbnuts
Can be found here, is linked to within the first link provided in the summary.
One of the most interesting criteria for a new internet, to me, was criteria #7:
Support anonymity where prudent, and accountability where necessary.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems true anonymity is becoming more and more important, and less and less available, as governments snoop more on the internet.
Which is extremely fast since Check 21 passed and was implemented -- did you miss the comments about electronic processing of checks? Check validation typically now takes less than an hour.
Not at all. People don't check the numbers, scanning equipment does that. Checks take 3-5 days to clear because your bank makes money off the float (the time between when they receive the money and they give it to you).
He thinks, therefore he am.
And what the hell is a philosophical empiricist? How would one test a philosophical theory?
Philosopher: I think, therefore I am.
Empiricist clocks philosopher upside the head and knocks him out cold
Empiricist: Nope. Still there.
Since empirical and philosophical are mutually exclusive, one would think that if an philosophical empiricist existed, we would enter some kind of twilight zone where military intelligence would make sense...
Oh what a solution-to-hydrogen-storage-and-delivery-problem
Not sure the marketing team will be quite satisfied with that ditty.
It's also possible to store hydrogen in a stable solid matrix using oxygen. There are some limitations on temperature (IIRC, the maximum temperature is something like 273 K) as well as a lot of issues with toxicity. In addition, most of the energy stored in H2 is used up by adding the oxygen to the hydrogen.
There are, however, plenty of advantages to the oxygen-hydrogen storage matrix, the most significant of which is that it can also be used to chill a refeshing potent potable.
Not so. If it is defined by the characteristics of property, and has value, then it falls within economic systems. You can't separate ownership from capitalism, regardless of whether the concept of ownership is something defined by law (as with IP), or by physical possession (as with small material goods), or by titular possession (as with large material goods).
You're right, it's not simply the result of the free market. It is, however, partly the result of a free market.
Not at all. There are plenty of commodities available for next to nothing in the physical realm, which are in short supply due to limitations on who may collect the goods (like land ownership), whose prices are high due to market forces. Claimsquatters looking for seams of precious metals are in the same boat as domain squatters, yet no one would argue that claimsquatting was not a result of the free market; nor would one argue that land speculation is not a result of the free market.
Also a factor, but this is not exlusionary to the market forces that cause the value to be so high. In fact, the domains wouldn't be improperly priced if it weren't for market forces.
Domain names are not a commodity, one cannot simply subsititute one domain name for another and have them be equivalent products. You can't extrapolate that low prices caused a shortage in this case. If you did want to consider domain names a commodity, then you'd have to say that they are priced too high, since the supply of them is infinite -- they should be free.
Yes, they have an interest. Legitimacy is another concern; if free market capitalism were to really apply, there is no question of legitimacy, only of interest.
Phishing: Agreed.
Pushing crapware: Caveat Emptor
Why a bad thing? In the long run, crappy domain names for everyone means that domain names will become less important for branding, which means less dependence on English, less dependence on getting the best domain name for your organization or person -- which frees us all up to spend more resources on other things. The whole domain registry system is broken, and the sooner domain names lose their relevance[1], the better.
[1] As is already happening, as people increasing use Google or other search engines as portals.