I was under the impression that Allen was seeking to recoup his investments in failed technology firms - he's invested in many that failed, leaving nothing but broken dreams and patents in their wake.
I don't think Woz was accurate in describing Allen as suing companies "because he bought all these patents'
Allen formed companies to develop products & technologies that failed - he didn't set out to become a patent troll, though he may be exhibiting that behavior now...
Allen's diverse set of interests also led him to invest in over 100 business ventures since he left Microsoft. Most of them were poorly managed or ahead of their time, so they flopped.
And he slid from being the third richest man in the world to 57th.
"Were you just too early? Or was it that you really needed a Bill Gates and didn't have that other person to push it through?" Stahl asked.
"Look in the Microsoft days, you had some great ideas and some great execution between me and Bill and many other people. You know, in technology most things fail. Most companies fail. But I had some whoppers," Allen said.
Some of his whoppers however produced numerous patents. Last year, in a move that angered Silicon Valley, Allen sued several giant companies accusing them of infringing on those old patents.
It's a long list, including AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, Office Max, Staples, Yahoo and YouTube.
"How do you argue that you had something to do with Google? It just seems so outlandish or kind of wacky," Stahl remarked.
"Look, Microsoft and Google, all these people, have patents of their own. They all enforce patents. They all charge other companies for patents. All I'm trying to do is get back the investment that I made to create these patents," Allen said.
"This is somewhat ironic given the heavy use of Linux in major Hollywood blockbuster film production."
No, it isn't - he is confusing a render farm with an editing deck - a film could easily have a thousand machines in it's render farm, but it is a rare film that uses more than a handful of editing decks. Typically you can count them on one hand, and have enough fingers left to go bowling with...
That throw-away line in his post above prevents me from thinking his "overview" of consumer-level editing of video on Linux will be anything worth spending time on.
I recently bought a Dell Vostro V13 with built-in 3G WWAN connectivity, but have not activated it. It didn't cost me any extra to have it in the netbook (in fact, I think it was cheaper because it included it;^), but first thing I did when I got the netbook was disable the 3G card in the BIOS, then I upgraded RAM, put in an SSD, and installed a new OS. I like having it as an option, but I don't suspect I'll ever activate it (unless someone else is willing to foot the bill...)
A hyperthreading P4 with 2 gigs of RAM and IDE or SATA HD with integrated graphics is FINE for Win7, Office 2010 for casual use. No serious delays, but casual users don't (in my opinion) accumulate 30+ open applications/windows in one session...
Personally I won't buy anything with less than two actual cores, but a hyper-threaded 3.0 GHz P4 is still a capable machine.
My employer (public school district in USA) has just adopted a 10 year replacement cycle. They think because they can keep such a computer running at home that long, the district should be able to as well... I blame the extra long life of Windows XP for that mindset.
Do you know what a 10 year old PC is like? They tend to max out at 1 Gig of PC133 RAM (at least the class of machines we bought ten years ago)...
Where I work we have over 1,000 P4s in daily use - it's our local public school system, and the tax payers have just decided that our district should not have a 5 year replacement cycle, but a 10 year cycle. We are watching our Dell OptiPlex GX270s die from bad capacitors on the MB/PS.
We are thinking of running Win7 on them, since as machines die we get more RAM to upgrade other 270s, and with hyperthreading and 2 gigs of RAM, they are fairly decent. (Better than Atom Netbook performance, worse than anything Core 2 Duo). Once you overcome the sound card driver issue in the box, they are very reasonable machines, even with Office 2010 on Win 7...
Do you have children? You never, EVER reward bad behavior - any point she may have had was erased by her wanton destruction of company assets for her own ego gratification...
Where I work we instruct users to never keep anything on their laptop/desktop hard drive - everything on the server, then, when they have a problem, we can re-image/replace the desktop inside of 20 minutes.
But it isn't your place to decide when your employer should spend money on your equipment. If you think your employer doesn't notice the issue, bring it to their attention. If they refuse the upgrade, you've learned about the company's priorities, and where you are in them - sounds like it's time to make a career decision...
The 10 year cost of "Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich" for those that earn less than $250K/year is $4 Trillion ($400 BN/yr), the cost for the tax cuts the Republicans fought for have a 10 year cost of $700 BN ($70 BN/yr). The tax cuts EVERYONE got cost way, way more than the cuts reserved for high-earners.
Really, 50% of every dollar made in US (GDP) going to the gov't? Are you insane?
To close the annual deficit you need another $1.6TN (if you choose not to cut spending), our federal income tax revenues are about $1.4TN/yr, so if you (and every other taxpayer in America) just looked at the amount owed on your 1040 and sent in double that each year, we could stop deficit spending and then start talking about paying off the debt... Increasing the the tax rate a few percentage points on 1% of the taxpayers won't cut it.
If you doubled everyone's tax payments to the federal government you could almost balance the budget - almost. The federal government took in an estimated $1.4 Trillion in 2010, and the deficit is estimated to be $1.6 Trillion in 2011...
The top 1% of taxpayers (over $250K/yr) pay about 39% of all income taxes, double the taxes they pay (not the rate, but the actual payment) and you've cut the deficit by about 39%.
Of course, as soon as you realize the plan actually outlines cuts outside discretionary spending, you'll likely change your tune and say that you can't cut non-discretionary spending (after just insisting that's what the GOP would do if it were serious about balancing the budget)...
Maybe if all the Dems out there would take their "Bush Tax Cuts" for the rich (you know, the cuts that lowered nearly every tax rate) and send that money to Planned Parenthood they could forgo federal funding and then abort all the poor, minority babies they like without any interference from the government. How would that be?
Last year, in August, shortly before a highly charged election the House & Senate took a bill originally written for other purposes and rewrote it to take money from the food stamp program and closed a few tax loopholes to provide $10BN in emergency aid for teachers, fire, police,and other first responders an $16BN to fund the "working just great" Medicare system... They re-worked the bill so fast, they didn't even have time to name it, let alone read it, HR 1586...
My point is it is NOT easier to start over with a new bill.
And we have the Internet because we wanted a way to connect and share resources that would survive (be resilient) in case of a Nuclear War. (not really)
DOesn't anyone here remember Doug Engelbart & The Mother of all Demos? The year was 1968, it was a technical marvel and was very carefully arranged, but REAL - it was a spare no expense demo of what was possible with the current technology:
Bell Labs innovated, AT&T, the Gov't sanctioned monopoly was, uhm, a monopoly. The two are not the same thing, and the ability to buy a third-party phone wasn't that big a deal "at the time". Western Electric made nearly any phone you could want, and they sold "interface boxes" for those you wanted to buy from third-parties (like answering machines, etc.).
AT&T had a GUARANTEED profit that was calculated off of expenses - that is why they poured so much money into research back in the day, they got a couple pennies/a nickle back in profit for every dollar they spent on infrastructure, billing, and research.
Don't like the President's fiscal policy? It's because you're racist.
Don't think a one-term Senator with no appreciable executive experience is ready to be President? It's because you're racist.
Want to follow-up on a challenge raised by one of the President's democratic primary contenders (and current Secretary of State)? It's because you're racist.
"In a recent editorial, the New York Times notes that demanding copies of e-mails and other documents is the latest technique used politically to silence critics."
Wow! The New York Times has cracked this wide-open, people asking for background information on something they are interested in? Who, exactly, do these Wisconsin Republicans think they are? It's not like the University can say no to them, right? Wait, what? They can? Curses! The forces of evil have been stopped dead in their tracks...
So, am I to assume that from here on out NY Times reporters will no longer ask for background information on things they report on, since that could be seen as stifling the free-speech rights of the subject of the report?
Amazingly enough, the folks hired by Google are not quite your run-of-the-mill employees (Want to work at Google? circa 2007), so I'm not at all surprised that they don't look to their direct manager for "technical insight." It is a viewpoint unique to low-level workers that all superiors are slightly better iterations of those that report to them, but as others have noted, being the best welder doesn't make that person the best to lead a group of welders.
Slashdot Mirror
I was under the impression that Allen was seeking to recoup his investments in failed technology firms - he's invested in many that failed, leaving nothing but broken dreams and patents in their wake.
I don't think Woz was accurate in describing Allen as suing companies "because he bought all these patents'
Allen formed companies to develop products & technologies that failed - he didn't set out to become a patent troll, though he may be exhibiting that behavior now...
From the recent 60 Minutes Interview:
From the above article:
No, it isn't - he is confusing a render farm with an editing deck - a film could easily have a thousand machines in it's render farm, but it is a rare film that uses more than a handful of editing decks. Typically you can count them on one hand, and have enough fingers left to go bowling with...
That throw-away line in his post above prevents me from thinking his "overview" of consumer-level editing of video on Linux will be anything worth spending time on.
Central Jersey RESISTOR group from 1970s in the Princeton, NJ area - http://www.resistors.org/index.php/Main_Page
I recently bought a Dell Vostro V13 with built-in 3G WWAN connectivity, but have not activated it. It didn't cost me any extra to have it in the netbook (in fact, I think it was cheaper because it included it ;^), but first thing I did when I got the netbook was disable the 3G card in the BIOS, then I upgraded RAM, put in an SSD, and installed a new OS. I like having it as an option, but I don't suspect I'll ever activate it (unless someone else is willing to foot the bill...)
A hyperthreading P4 with 2 gigs of RAM and IDE or SATA HD with integrated graphics is FINE for Win7, Office 2010 for casual use. No serious delays, but casual users don't (in my opinion) accumulate 30+ open applications/windows in one session...
Personally I won't buy anything with less than two actual cores, but a hyper-threaded 3.0 GHz P4 is still a capable machine.
My employer (public school district in USA) has just adopted a 10 year replacement cycle. They think because they can keep such a computer running at home that long, the district should be able to as well... I blame the extra long life of Windows XP for that mindset.
Do you know what a 10 year old PC is like? They tend to max out at 1 Gig of PC133 RAM (at least the class of machines we bought ten years ago)...
Where I work we have over 1,000 P4s in daily use - it's our local public school system, and the tax payers have just decided that our district should not have a 5 year replacement cycle, but a 10 year cycle. We are watching our Dell OptiPlex GX270s die from bad capacitors on the MB/PS.
We are thinking of running Win7 on them, since as machines die we get more RAM to upgrade other 270s, and with hyperthreading and 2 gigs of RAM, they are fairly decent. (Better than Atom Netbook performance, worse than anything Core 2 Duo). Once you overcome the sound card driver issue in the box, they are very reasonable machines, even with Office 2010 on Win 7...
Do you have children? You never, EVER reward bad behavior - any point she may have had was erased by her wanton destruction of company assets for her own ego gratification...
Where I work we instruct users to never keep anything on their laptop/desktop hard drive - everything on the server, then, when they have a problem, we can re-image/replace the desktop inside of 20 minutes.
Done right, this shows initiative.
Done wrong, you could really cause a shit-storm in an office area ("Why does he have two monitors?", "Why can't I have two monitors?")
Grandpa always said: "A good carpenter never blames his tools"
But it isn't your place to decide when your employer should spend money on your equipment. If you think your employer doesn't notice the issue, bring it to their attention. If they refuse the upgrade, you've learned about the company's priorities, and where you are in them - sounds like it's time to make a career decision...
The parent you responded to did.
The 10 year cost of "Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich" for those that earn less than $250K/year is $4 Trillion ($400 BN/yr), the cost for the tax cuts the Republicans fought for have a 10 year cost of $700 BN ($70 BN/yr). The tax cuts EVERYONE got cost way, way more than the cuts reserved for high-earners.
Really, 50% of every dollar made in US (GDP) going to the gov't? Are you insane?
To close the annual deficit you need another $1.6TN (if you choose not to cut spending), our federal income tax revenues are about $1.4TN/yr, so if you (and every other taxpayer in America) just looked at the amount owed on your 1040 and sent in double that each year, we could stop deficit spending and then start talking about paying off the debt... Increasing the the tax rate a few percentage points on 1% of the taxpayers won't cut it.
If you doubled everyone's tax payments to the federal government you could almost balance the budget - almost. The federal government took in an estimated $1.4 Trillion in 2010, and the deficit is estimated to be $1.6 Trillion in 2011...
The top 1% of taxpayers (over $250K/yr) pay about 39% of all income taxes, double the taxes they pay (not the rate, but the actual payment) and you've cut the deficit by about 39%.
I'd suggest you take a look at Rep. Ryan's 2012 Budget Plan
Of course, as soon as you realize the plan actually outlines cuts outside discretionary spending, you'll likely change your tune and say that you can't cut non-discretionary spending (after just insisting that's what the GOP would do if it were serious about balancing the budget)...
Maybe if all the Dems out there would take their "Bush Tax Cuts" for the rich (you know, the cuts that lowered nearly every tax rate ) and send that money to Planned Parenthood they could forgo federal funding and then abort all the poor, minority babies they like without any interference from the government. How would that be?
Exactly - Verizon was 'incurably premature' - and as any woman will tell you, premature is never good!
Last year, in August, shortly before a highly charged election the House & Senate took a bill originally written for other purposes and rewrote it to take money from the food stamp program and closed a few tax loopholes to provide $10BN in emergency aid for teachers, fire, police,and other first responders an $16BN to fund the "working just great" Medicare system... They re-worked the bill so fast, they didn't even have time to name it, let alone read it, HR 1586...
My point is it is NOT easier to start over with a new bill.
And we have the Internet because we wanted a way to connect and share resources that would survive (be resilient) in case of a Nuclear War. (not really)
DOesn't anyone here remember Doug Engelbart & The Mother of all Demos? The year was 1968, it was a technical marvel and was very carefully arranged, but REAL - it was a spare no expense demo of what was possible with the current technology:
Here's the first of 9 videos on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfIgzSoTMOs
Oh wait, computers didn't exist before Steve Jobs & that guy with the beard invented them, right?
Really poor research...
Bell Labs innovated, AT&T, the Gov't sanctioned monopoly was, uhm, a monopoly. The two are not the same thing, and the ability to buy a third-party phone wasn't that big a deal "at the time". Western Electric made nearly any phone you could want, and they sold "interface boxes" for those you wanted to buy from third-parties (like answering machines, etc.).
AT&T had a GUARANTEED profit that was calculated off of expenses - that is why they poured so much money into research back in the day, they got a couple pennies/a nickle back in profit for every dollar they spent on infrastructure, billing, and research.
Welcome to America, 2011:
Wow! The New York Times has cracked this wide-open, people asking for background information on something they are interested in? Who, exactly, do these Wisconsin Republicans think they are? It's not like the University can say no to them, right? Wait, what? They can? Curses! The forces of evil have been stopped dead in their tracks...
So, am I to assume that from here on out NY Times reporters will no longer ask for background information on things they report on, since that could be seen as stifling the free-speech rights of the subject of the report?
Amazingly enough, the folks hired by Google are not quite your run-of-the-mill employees (Want to work at Google? circa 2007), so I'm not at all surprised that they don't look to their direct manager for "technical insight." It is a viewpoint unique to low-level workers that all superiors are slightly better iterations of those that report to them, but as others have noted, being the best welder doesn't make that person the best to lead a group of welders.