The link does nothing more than redirect to the front page. Was it supposed to do something else?
I checked the link, it goes to firehose. Maybe you don't have access to firehose (it's in Beta, maybe it's karma-dependent for access)? Or maybe you just need to look a little closer, since FireHose does look a little like the main page.
FYI, FireHose lets users affect submission acceptance by rating the submissions before (and after) they get approved -- this allows for pre-emptive action, and also feedback.
I have to put up my 10 meter wide 'FUCK YOU' banner.
not for nothing, how about putting up a banner with original text and a copyright notice? Then they can't distribute without permission... and you could set your price for distribution rights.
You've got the power to make a difference in the story selection process, why don't you use it instead of complaining meaninglessly? Especially since it'd already been pointed out by several posters?
So I no longer see it as such a terrible invasion of privacy.
And the "slippery slope" example rears its ugly head once more.
Next revision, we'll all former convicts required to register screen names.
And the revision after that, all those who've been arrested (regardless of whether they were convicted) required to register. And the people will say "I no longer see it as such a terrible invasion of privacy".
And final revision will be that all are required to register their screen names. And most will say "I no longer see it as such a terrible invasion of privacy".
When it comes to protecting children from child molesters, there is no substitute for responsible supervision. And we all should have to live with the fact that the world is dangerous.
and when the US needs to fight a major war is hires a million mercenaries... Ok, it doesn't, the US has an army for that kind of thing.
I think maybe you should take a closer look at how the US fights wars now. There are a ton of mercs over in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Sure, they're called "security consultants" or "logistical manpower" but they are definitely mercenaries.
Of course as soon as someone would have suggested that we find a way to clean up the space junk early on, they would have been derided for getting in the way and worrying about petty concerns.
Bah, it's hubris to think that mankind has put enough stuff in LEO to affect the entire orbital space.
Furthermore, what's to say that natural sources don't put more space junk in LEO than human processes?
And who cares if we've "filled up" LEO -- surely technological advances will enable us to deal with the complications as they arise.
And why should we (the US) have to bear the biggest burden of reducing the trash in LEO, when developing nations (those without a space program) get off scott free? It's not like we're the major contributor or anything.
Besides, the jury is still out... plenty of independent* scientists dispute the findings of this study, and we should take no action until there is consensus.
*Independent: funded by the "other side" of the interested parties
If Dell is requiring it (assuming it would be the same for AMD), it's quite another.
It doesn't matter who initiated the transaction, what matters is the effect.
At any rate, a major part of AMD's complaint against Dell is that Dell wasn't requiring the payment; rather, that Intel was making the payment in exchange for exclusivity.
The courts of Japan determined that this was, in fact, the situation -- and Dell chose not to contest their ruling.
The current filing is nothing more than an allegation.
An allegation in a lawsuit is not a minor thing. For the shareholders to undergo the expense is a big deal.
And if Intel wants to pay them for the privilege, why not?
Because Intel was using a dominant market position to pay Dell for exclusivity, which is anticompetitive.
I think you may be confusing free-as-in-liberty with free-as-in-competitive wrt markets. Free markets often need to be protected in order to stay free.
How did you determine that the "kickbacks" were classed as revenue and not as a deduction from COGS? Is there a separate line-item in the financials under the head revenue?
Inference, based upon the wording of the complaint. How else would one hide the reduction of expense in order to manipulate stock price, while still accounting for all the cash in*? Your options are COGS, operating costs, below-the-line rev/exp, or gross income. If they included it in COGS, it wouldn't be a problem (and wouldn't be hidden, as the complaint alleges). Below-the-line would be way too obvious, and would likely not affect stock value enough to be worthwhile. Reduction of operating costs? Again, too obvious. It would be way too easy to spot a variance that large. It's the impact on gross income that would lead to a class-action suit of price manipulation.
* Of course, I'm assuming that they accounted for all the cash in. If PWC was complicit, this isn't necessarily what happened.
Well, if the USD250 mn received was accounted for (thus "inflating profits") how can it be secret?
Because it wasn't tied in to the product it applied to (as reduced COGS, as rebates should be applied). Instead, it was classed as revenue, which then overstates both their gross income and their COGS. While the net is the same, key ratios are thrown off, thus changing the valuation analysts give to the stock.
Last time I checked, it was not "illegal" to offer quantity discounts/rebates to large customers. Hell, according to the law firm's logic, buying at CostCo is illegal because they offer quantity based rebates!
That depends on your market position. In Intel's position (they dominated the market at the time) predatory pricing is what those rebates would be considered.
All criterea for revenue recognition were fulfilled - the amount was a revenue receipt and was actually received. How can then it amount to "artificial inflation of profits"?
The amount was not a revenue receipt, it was a reduction of costs. This allows them to overstate profits by stating the revenue 100% in the period it was received, instead of subtracting the value from inventory, where it should have been included in any calculations of depreciation, or the writing off of unsold goods, before being included in the COGS. Fundamentally, this means that Dell overstated revenues during the periods the rebates were included on the P&L, but understated them afterwards. This is instrinsic to the claim of stock price manipulation, and inspection of Michael Dell's disclosures show that he sold 32 million shares in 2004 for $1.12 billion. I'd like to see when those rebates occurred, and how they compare to when MD sold those shares.
I could have sworn I've seen Dell selling machines with AMD CPUs.
You have. This is historical, not current activity -- and was stopped when AMD started filing complaints under Competition Law in many jurisdictions -- Japan, the EU, etc.
Ahh, nope. I suggest you do some research on anti-monopoly laws, as well as US regulations of publicly traded companies. Companies in a position of market dominance (as Intel was at one time) are not allowed to pay resellers to not use competitor products. The money was likely paid under the table to avoid investigation in re: Intel paying to keep AMD out of Dell products; the other reason for the payments being on the sly was to manipulate stock prices, which is also illegal.
From AMD's complaint about Intel's unfair business practices, emphasis mine:
Intel's conduct has unfairly and artificially capped AMD's market share, and constrained it from expanding to reach the minimum efficient levels of scale necessary to compete with Intel as a predominant supplier to major customers. As a result, computer manufacturers continue to buy most of their requirements from Intel, continue to pay monopoly prices, continue to be exposed to Intel's economic coercion, and continue to submit to artificial limits Intel places on their purchases from AMD. With AMD's opportunity to compete thus constrained, the cycle continues, and Intel's monopoly profits continue to flow.
Consumers ultimately foot this bill, in the form of inflated PC prices and the loss of freedom to purchase computer products that best fit their needs. Society is worse off for lack of innovation that only a truly competitive market can drive. The Japanese Government recognized these competitive harms when on March 8, 2005, its Fair Trade Commission (the "JFTC") recommended that Intel be sanctioned for its exclusionary misconduct directed at AMD. Intel chose not to contest the charges.
It's pretty likely, IMO, that Intel used these unfair business practices in countries other than Japan.
Let alone the reporting issues for public companies that other posters have addressed.
Why is this a problem? Now, instead of simply a DMCA takedown notice, YouTube is far more liable for damages because they made a direct profit off of the usage of unauthorized content.
Not so, in the case of the subject of this article. YouTube is not making profits off this, these are examples of companies using a "neutral" distribution mechanism to get free views for their ads. It's whoever is appending the ads to the vids who are making the profits.
The problem will only get worse as (a) YouTube starts paying users to upload content (b) users keep uploading unauthorized copies of shows and (c) YouTube starts needing to generate profits and adds more advertisements such as pre- and post-stream ads.
. Well, as for (a), AFAIK, YouTube will be paying for user-generated content -- which is less inclusive than user-uploaded content. YouTube has already been in negotiations with/made deals with old media re: content distribution. As for (c), it's pretty simple, really -- only vetted uploads (covered by a distribution agreement) will have ads appended to them. This protects YouTube from the extra damages you mention.
The biggest problem with mid-life career change is avoiding getting in at the bottom rung in your new career. As an established professional, you'll want to demand more money, and be willing to work fewer hours, than your typical early-career employee in your new field.
I would advise you (as I've been advised) to search for a company that has both roles, your current one and your desired one -- and explicitly state during the interview process that you're looking to change to the new career. If you find the right company, they may even pay for refresher courses.
Once you establish with your target company that you're extremely enthusiastic about them and the roles (as well as being a go-getter and a good worker) you'll be in good shape. At a bare minimum, make sure you've read the latest journals in the particular field, so you can dmeonstrate your interest.
One other note -- taking the initiative to better your situation is a Good Thing(tm), both for yourself, and to prospective employers. Many good employers will consider that a huge advantage over a candidate who is just beginning a career and can't be sure if that's where they really want to be.
. They have VERY little pharmacology training, and almost no knowledge on drug interactions. That is what pharmacists are for. Doctors prescribe drugs to keep you alive, pharmacists stop them from killing you.
Absolutely, although in a clinical setting, the pharmacist is often directly involved in establishing the course of treatment. Ideally, no prescription would be written without consultation between the doctor and the pharmacist.
Didn't the world move beyond customizable portals with My Netscape?
I don't know -- but since News Corp. paid $580 mil for Intermix's 55% share of Myspace, it seems that wherever the world moved to still has plenty of opportunity for fluff to make cash.
Does anyone actually care about this fluff anymore?
Yes. That's why so many people have RSS feeds, certain Firefox extensions, etc.
Academics are already very busy, and finding time to post summaries is going to be difficult.
That's what undergrad research assistants are for. It's also something that could easily fall under a university's PR budget -- loading the site with contributions from your organization looks pretty good to prospective students and their parents, let alone companies who are interested in co-funding research.
People don't understand or really care that one way is a better or worse way to navigate the webthan another, so long as their way works.
But isn't that a good thing? Increased usability for all users?
Joe and Mary Sixpack get to use the internet without getting frustrated because they get where they want to go, and you and I get to search and navigate efficiently?
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, FireHose lets users affect submission acceptance by rating the submissions before (and after) they get approved -- this allows for pre-emptive action, and also feedback.
You've got the power to make a difference in the story selection process, why don't you use it instead of complaining meaninglessly? Especially since it'd already been pointed out by several posters?
Next revision, we'll all former convicts required to register screen names.
And the revision after that, all those who've been arrested (regardless of whether they were convicted) required to register. And the people will say "I no longer see it as such a terrible invasion of privacy".
And final revision will be that all are required to register their screen names. And most will say "I no longer see it as such a terrible invasion of privacy".
When it comes to protecting children from child molesters, there is no substitute for responsible supervision. And we all should have to live with the fact that the world is dangerous.
I think maybe you should take a closer look at how the US fights wars now. There are a ton of mercs over in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Sure, they're called "security consultants" or "logistical manpower" but they are definitely mercenaries.
Bah, it's hubris to think that mankind has put enough stuff in LEO to affect the entire orbital space.
Furthermore, what's to say that natural sources don't put more space junk in LEO than human processes?
And who cares if we've "filled up" LEO -- surely technological advances will enable us to deal with the complications as they arise.
And why should we (the US) have to bear the biggest burden of reducing the trash in LEO, when developing nations (those without a space program) get off scott free? It's not like we're the major contributor or anything.
Besides, the jury is still out... plenty of independent* scientists dispute the findings of this study, and we should take no action until there is consensus.
*Independent: funded by the "other side" of the interested parties
At any rate, a major part of AMD's complaint against Dell is that Dell wasn't requiring the payment; rather, that Intel was making the payment in exchange for exclusivity. The courts of Japan determined that this was, in fact, the situation -- and Dell chose not to contest their ruling.
An allegation in a lawsuit is not a minor thing. For the shareholders to undergo the expense is a big deal.
I think you may be confusing free-as-in-liberty with free-as-in-competitive wrt markets. Free markets often need to be protected in order to stay free.
Inference, based upon the wording of the complaint. How else would one hide the reduction of expense in order to manipulate stock price, while still accounting for all the cash in*? Your options are COGS, operating costs, below-the-line rev/exp, or gross income. If they included it in COGS, it wouldn't be a problem (and wouldn't be hidden, as the complaint alleges). Below-the-line would be way too obvious, and would likely not affect stock value enough to be worthwhile. Reduction of operating costs? Again, too obvious. It would be way too easy to spot a variance that large. It's the impact on gross income that would lead to a class-action suit of price manipulation.
* Of course, I'm assuming that they accounted for all the cash in. If PWC was complicit, this isn't necessarily what happened.
In terms of the SEC filings, it doesn't matter.
That depends on your market position. In Intel's position (they dominated the market at the time) predatory pricing is what those rebates would be considered.
The amount was not a revenue receipt, it was a reduction of costs. This allows them to overstate profits by stating the revenue 100% in the period it was received, instead of subtracting the value from inventory, where it should have been included in any calculations of depreciation, or the writing off of unsold goods, before being included in the COGS. Fundamentally, this means that Dell overstated revenues during the periods the rebates were included on the P&L, but understated them afterwards. This is instrinsic to the claim of stock price manipulation, and inspection of Michael Dell's disclosures show that he sold 32 million shares in 2004 for $1.12 billion. I'd like to see when those rebates occurred, and how they compare to when MD sold those shares.
From AMD's complaint about Intel's unfair business practices, emphasis mine:
It's pretty likely, IMO, that Intel used these unfair business practices in countries other than Japan.
Let alone the reporting issues for public companies that other posters have addressed.
Not so, in the case of the subject of this article. YouTube is not making profits off this, these are examples of companies using a "neutral" distribution mechanism to get free views for their ads. It's whoever is appending the ads to the vids who are making the profits.
.
Well, as for (a), AFAIK, YouTube will be paying for user-generated content -- which is less inclusive than user-uploaded content. YouTube has already been in negotiations with/made deals with old media re: content distribution.
As for (c), it's pretty simple, really -- only vetted uploads (covered by a distribution agreement) will have ads appended to them. This protects YouTube from the extra damages you mention.
The biggest problem with mid-life career change is avoiding getting in at the bottom rung in your new career. As an established professional, you'll want to demand more money, and be willing to work fewer hours, than your typical early-career employee in your new field.
I would advise you (as I've been advised) to search for a company that has both roles, your current one and your desired one -- and explicitly state during the interview process that you're looking to change to the new career. If you find the right company, they may even pay for refresher courses.
Once you establish with your target company that you're extremely enthusiastic about them and the roles (as well as being a go-getter and a good worker) you'll be in good shape. At a bare minimum, make sure you've read the latest journals in the particular field, so you can dmeonstrate your interest.
One other note -- taking the initiative to better your situation is a Good Thing(tm), both for yourself, and to prospective employers. Many good employers will consider that a huge advantage over a candidate who is just beginning a career and can't be sure if that's where they really want to be.
Methane: CH4
Oxygen: O2
2CH4 --> O2 (without proton loss)
Sweet, you've designed the real Mr. Fusion -- the reactor fits in the chest cavity!
I, for one, welcome our new oxygen-emitting greenhouse-gas-reducing cyborg overlords.
I don't know -- but since News Corp. paid $580 mil for Intermix's 55% share of Myspace, it seems that wherever the world moved to still has plenty of opportunity for fluff to make cash.
Yes. That's why so many people have RSS feeds, certain Firefox extensions, etc.
That's what undergrad research assistants are for. It's also something that could easily fall under a university's PR budget -- loading the site with contributions from your organization looks pretty good to prospective students and their parents, let alone companies who are interested in co-funding research.
Stuck in the 1920s? The Republican Party, as a whole, hasn't been interested in the free market since then.
But isn't that a good thing? Increased usability for all users?
Joe and Mary Sixpack get to use the internet without getting frustrated because they get where they want to go, and you and I get to search and navigate efficiently?
That's a lot different than defrauding an election.