I agree with you, but the simple idea that Ron Paul can get 15% of the vote in a given state shows that we indeed have people who care about things outside party lines (even if you don't agree with them.) I don't think many people have the time or vigor to go to a political rally, but that doesn't mean they don't care, or don't want to act. The two party system is pretty ridiculous, but people define the parties, the ideas don't pop up out of thin air. We're a Republic and people can change things without "direct" involvement; which is why the Republican system (not the party) works well in the U.S. The system works, but if I were a conspiracy theorist I'd say it has become too influenced by media...luckily the media is falling out of the hands (ever slowly) of conglomerates and into the hands of the people...and thus the system is reestablished and works again. This is why I think that Google being in China is a good idea. In America we do have a choice, and until you don't have one, you'll never know that you did...I guess you could say we are spoiled. In America we can flip a coin and choose heads or tails, in China they have to choose tails, which is an actual illusion of choice as opposed to having two choices like us.
I don't know if you could say they are content with their government, seeing as most are probably afraid to stand up to it and others simple don't know if there are better ways to govern the people. I doubt many in the U.S. are content with their government, luckily we have elections, free information and free speech...they have...uhh a censored Google index.
What are you five years old? You called out social features that you don't even know about. Ever heard of Last.fm...oh yes, music is totally to shut people out. Get out of the house and go to a concert and stop with your egotistical posts of utter bullshit that say things like "Sadly, your post says more about your own insecurity than it does anything about Apple product users."...trying to take the high ground? I can tell by your post that you're lying through your finger tips otherwise you wouldn't have added "(even if, like in my case, they are all made by Apple)"
What a joke, I can't believe some clown modded you up, like I said; "circle jerk"
You realize that the term "squirt" is a really old computer term...right? I suppose you wouldn't be on Slashdot if you didn't know that; then again iPods do seem to have a good social feature I hear...I think it's called a "circle jerk"..."Oh you own an Apple product too!? You're so artsy!".."Oh, don't be so coy! I have run OSX too, I can't believe Vista sucks so much, screw the Zune...I've never used either of them, but...LOL Micro$oft...see what I did there with the $ sign, ahaha, totally awesome."
So, all I've read here is complete garbage on how Microsoft's Zune sucks...when no one here has ever even seen or used a Zune more than likely...as some have stated at least. So let me break it down for you...the Zune as a HDD player is better than the iPod Classic, the Zune as a flash player is just as good as an iPod Nano. I've own 3 iPods, and I've own 1 Zune 80. So far, I love the Zune much more than the iPod; just yesterday I received a Zune software update which has finally made the software not a complete piece of crap. There are great social features, radio, wireless, a slick interface, a "squircle" which is surprisingly easier to use than a scroll wheel. Go to Best Buy and play with a -new- Zune...aka second generation. The first generation, I frankly found to be a brick with a screen; however the Zune 80 is a different beast. The screen is beautiful and it has so many more features than an iPod equivalent. Now you can sync your Zune with WMP or iTunes thanks to a hack (Google it.)
It really is a good device and Microsoft is making steps to combine the Xbox Live Marketplace with the Zune marketplace, which (in my opinion) will finally give iTunes a competitor. Anyhow I am willing to bet this technology never sees the light of day, a) the source is a blog on at New York Times and b) DMR has been a market failure. Just because Microsoft has blueprints of it, doesn't mean it will go to market; Microsoft will likely filter it through market testing or dumb it down just enough so they can find a happy medium for publishers and customers. The problem is that Microsoft needs to listen to the publishers, because they have such a small marketshare; Apple doesn't have an obligation...yet because of its massive marketshare; like I said though, Microsoft has plans to combine the Zune Marketplace and the Xbox Live Marketplace...and I think that could eventually compete with iTunes quite nicely, especially with the Zune's wireless syncing capabilities and the Xbox's user base.
I've been through 3 iPods and jdecided to test the Zune when the second generation came out, and I love it's interface more than the iPod interface... I'm going to guess you've never spent more than 5 minutes with a Zune v2. So frankly I'm going to go with my experience over your "Nephew's", the iPod touch is a different issue of course...but as far as flash and HDD based players go, the Zune wins my vote. It's not like the iPod has been the best in the industry as an overall player all these years. The main reason the iPod was a success, is that Apple marketed it perfectly as a fashionable player. That and it really wasn't until the Zune's "squircle" that the scroll wheel (in my opinion) was beaten in ease of use. Go play with a Zune v2 (Zune 80 preferably) one day; I assure you, if you look at it without the "Microsoft made...this" perception, you may just well find that you like it more so than the iPod classic/nano.
Yes, Microsoft does have a good index, that doesn't mean they have a better search algorithm for all terms. A lot of Google's indexed sites consist of link farms; and you are making an assumption in saying that people keep switching their browsers over to Google. I'm willing to bet, that in most cases people leave IE with Live Search. Why? Because generally IE users aren't "power users", they aren't going to search as often as users on Firefox or other third party browsers. Google is a powerful engine no doubt, it's the only engine I use, but my point is Live has a good index, and their technology is comparable to Google's. Microsoft is simply making a mistake in their algorithm as they aren't focusing on power users are much as they are general users. Their search engine usage, I have no doubt would explode (in terms of percentage) if they would focus on people who search the most instead of on all peoples; Google because of it's large market share, knows what people click on which makes Microsoft and Yahoo's jobs much harder. Google seems to focus on its power users, but sadly Google's index is so big, that it consists of a lot of spam. That has improved lately, but I remember getting top search results being link farms not long ago. This is one advantage that Live has, they can have a more agile index that may in time, be more relevant with the correct algorithm.
Why would Microsoft axe Yahoo? They would just put them on the same search index and advertising algorithm. Live actually has a good index...I think Microsoft could wait 2 years and they could get Yahoo at half the price, especially the way Jerry Yang is driving it into the ground. He makes Terry Semel look like a genius for crying outloud; Yang needs to let go, he's getting a steal. Microsoft, is good with money pits, they turned the Xbox franchise into a profitable entity and forced Sony to take massive losses in their PS3.
You may think shareholders are idiots, but that doesn't change anything at all; such as,the fact that Yahoo has an overvalued stock because of mismanagement (look at their F P/E and guidance), and disgruntled shareholders as a result (Yahoo didn't even tell institutional owners that Microsoft raised the bid, because, "it wasn't in writing.") So yes, you did miss the point, or chose to ignore it completely. Yahoo is not private, they have an obligation to adhere to the company owners aka shareholders for providing them with equity,; their board is full of clowns. I have a feeling if your stock went from The mid 40s to the low 20s (prior to Microsoft bid) in two years during a bull market run, and still be overvalued, you too would be quite disgruntled and longing for some M&A. There are people who lost tons of money yesterday and over the past 3 years in IRAs, 401ks, etc; not all of them are millionaires; so "hey, you guys are complete idiots, because Yahoo didn't need Microsoft to begin with" doesn't quite cut it. Put your money where your mouth is and take a 45% loss from thousands of dollars in your account because of company mismanagement and then tell me shareholders are idiots.
I don't own any Yahoo stock atm, but they will probably get bought for $33 a share; so your and smart money's rhetoric doesn't mean much anyhow
2000 was the tech bubble burst, that's not even a fair comparison; let's look at Cisco's stock performance, or Amazon's since 2000. What a joke...first the Xbox is now profitable and outperforming the Playstation -former market leader-, the Zune is still very young, Vista is no more a PR disaster than ME was -probably much less of one.- Microsoft still has relative top talent, and every company in the world other than Google has failed to get anywhere in search and advertising. Yeah, thanks for your "analysis."
Yahoo the company doesn't need Microsoft to stay in existance, but Yahoo's shareholders need Microsoft to not have to wait 5 years to ever see $33 a share again. You miss the point that Yahoo is a public company, they have an obligation to look out for shareholders, which they haven't been doing; and their board will pay for it, Yang has already basically pleaded that Microsoft come back. When earlier he called it a "distraction," now he says he's interested in talking more. Ballmer played him very well, shareholders will put more pressure on the board in the coming weeks. I have no doubt Yahoo will belong to Microsoft soon.
Nor would the Justice Department allow such a takeover (Google taking over Microsoft that is). Google really is -currently- just a "one trick pony" as Ballmer has stated before. Whoa, search advertisements...alright. As much as I love Google's products, that market wouldn't exactly be hard to take away from Google. Live's search is actually, honestly probably better than Google's, but I'm so accustom to Google and have a Google account which I love...but that doesn't mean others won't change. I mean teenagers seem to switch email addresses every month, they don't switch Operating Systems. Apple's growth is phenomenal, but it's also a victim of the law of percentages. For example, it's easy to have 50% market growth when you only have 5% of the market. On the other hand Microsoft could have 10% growth with 95% of the market and still be gaining more customers. Microsoft also has manufacturers that have to insure that they remain on top, Dell & HP etc. Google has no one that has to ensure they remain on top, it's easy to set up a publisher or advertiser account over at Yahoo or Live. Anyhow, I think Ballmer handled this deal perfectly and I actually think Microsoft finally is starting to get it. I'll be very interested to see Windows 7, the Zune v2 is amazing, the 360 is amazing, Visual Studio is still the best; Microsoft has done a pretty good job, remember Ballmer has had to wade Microsoft through the tech bust aftermath, that is something Google has never faced and I'd be interested to see how they could handle such an event. I would like to see Ballmer leave soon though, I would love to see what direction Microsoft would go in. I think Microsoft has so much potential to unleash and it might just take a change in management to bring it out completely.
Do you know anything about valuation? Stock dollar value doesn't resemble true value. I just told you that Google has a price to earnings (meaning their earnings per share x their multiple (P/E) = the stock price) So you take Google's share price and divide it by the P/E multiple (~41.82 vs Yahoo's ~ 32.26) and that's how much you they made per share...so Google is actually cheaper than Yahoo...So to put it simply you in fact don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let me break down the math for you...
Yahoo makes 76 cents per share.76 * their current P/E which is ~32.26 (their FP/E is higher which means they are expected to earn less in the coming year) = 24.51...oh wait, that's their approximate stock price
Now Google makes $14.23 a share their P/E is ~41.82 (their forward P/E is lower, meaning they are expected to make more in the next year)...14.23*41.82 = 595.09...oh man that's their approximate stock price. Madness!
Now Google is expected to make more in the coming year, so it's cheaper, due to the F P/E. I'll do quick math for that too...GOOG is Google and YHOO is Yahoo. YHOO's F P/E = 48.43 their current stock price is 24.47...divide that by their F/PE and you get 0.50 a share...that's A LOT less than they have made in the past 4 quarters. Now GOOG's F P/E = 32.66, their current stock prices is 594.90...divide that by their F/PE and you get 18.21 a share. That's a positive growth rate, YHOO has a negative growth rate, in valuation terms, generally people are willing to pay twice the growth rate...I'll let you do the math with that...but the bottom line is Google is cheaper than Yahoo on a valuation basis.
Note how Google has a lower F P/E...that means it's cheaper, because I'm multiplying the stock price by a lower number. Also, just so you know, the only reason the stock wasn't down more today is because the board is probably going to be ousted by activist shareholders and Microsoft is speculated to come back and buy it for $33 a share.
You mean Microsoft is doing what every other company on earth does in a comparative analysis? That's crazy, it's like what if Apple made a commercial where they assumed all PCs were basically eMachines running Windows 98...I'm so glad they don't do that...oh wait. If you're going to attack advertising campaigns attack everyone who does it (which is everyone) not just the ones you don't like. Then again if you successfully attacked and claimed victory over this advertising method....you wouldn't make much if any money from your blog, considering it's ad driven and your blog is basically just a comparative advertisement anyhow.
Microsoft's business is actually doing quite well, have you looked at their profits lately? Their revenue stream? Microsoft needs Yahoo for internet advertising, because that part of their business has been a money pit. Just because you have a bias against Microsoft (obviously), doesn't mean that it's doing horrible. Also, Microsoft withdrew the bid in a formal letter, that does in fact mean they withdrew the offer; previously Yahoo had rejected it but I didn't see their stock tank...but now their stock is about to plummet.
What the board and many here don't seem to understand is that Yahoo's stock is greatly overvalued even in the low 20s...it had a negative/flat growth rate with a forward looking price to earnings well above ~50...Google, which as a HUGE growth rate only has a forward looking price to earnings of ~32. Yahoo could sign a deal with Google and increase profits slightly, but they would have just wasted billions on their new advertising platform "Amazon", and their stock would still be overvalued. The fact that Yahoo didn't take that bid shows how poorly managed the company is. There are going to be a lot of shareholder lawsuits tomorrow morning as the stock drops 20-30%. At this point I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft just stepping in to buy shares and build a position to 5% stake, which is the legal limit before you have to file with the SEC and publicly disclose that you massive stake. At that point they would probably do a proxy battle and would win...getting Yahoo at an even cheaper price. Yahoo's management really is horrible, Ballmer (like him or not) is making a brilliant move. He tried to be generous with a massive premium, now he's just going to give them the traditional Microsoft shaft.
I'm going to have to say that it was discovered, to me this is like asking "did we invent the earth as a spherical object or did we discover it was a spherical object?"...well we invented the term "spherical" and the language to allow that word, but it has almost always been spherical (I know it's not a perfect sphere). The order in the universe which is measured by mathematics have existed before humans...we simply discovered its order and called the order mathematics. Everything we do is in observation and evaluation, we simply shape our society on the order of everything and observe ways to make it work for us.
Why was this even modded up? Anyone who says one platform has zero uses is just a psuedointellectual and pending on the situation either anti-Microsoft, anti-Google, anti-Linux or anti-Apple...of course the former is what it's in style apparently. I run Windows Vista x64, my server runs Linux, and I have a Google account. I used to have an iPod but now I have a Zune. Fanboys lose all credibility with statements like "you should avoid all MS products." If you are going to post such things you are contributing nothing to the conversation but libel; then again I guess we'd only have half the number of comments on any given Microsoft news.
I've been taking Paxil for about 8 months now and I can say that it definitely works, granted I'm taking it for social anxiety more than depression...but it certainly helps, and I can feel myself coming off of it towards the end of the day, so I know it's not merely 100% mental. Also, quitting "cold turkey" really isn't good, like I said I can feel myself coming off of the drug at the end of the day...my dosage is pretty low, so I can't imagine anyone with a high dosage of the same drug (Paxil) being able to quite cold turkey at all without feeling absolutely horrible.
The GUI I've seen on the base Andriod models look horrible, if they wanted to compete with the "pretty" iPhone they'd more than likely run with Windows Mobile...which is an excellent platform that already integrates with a vast number of programs. Android sounds promising but as of right now it's not what I would call stylish, which is what Alienware shoots for (whether you agree that they meet that goal or not [I'd say their laptops are pretty hot myself])
Uhm, back in the day Yahoo used Google's search index...
As much as we joke about Yahoo being nothing compared to Google they get around 2 Billion page views a month, which greatly overpowers Google...if Microsoft can monetize Yahoo properly, well it would be a steal for Microsoft. Meanwhile Google's stock is down 8% today last I checked on the back of missing their earnings and this announcement...Microsoft blew away their earnings, they must be doing something right. Yahoo isn't just a search engine, it's more like the revised AOL...there are talks that Google might look to buy AOL after this move by Microsoft.
I've watched quite a few of his speeches, I don't see how he's batshit insane...I support the guy though, I support him so he can keep all of the truly batshit crazy/fiscally irresponsible people in Congress in check; by vetoing pretty much every bill that isn't responsible or violates the rights of the people. I think the economic policies are quite reasonable, but I think the monetary ideas as it relates to Austrian economics are preposterous (more of a Milton Friedman guy myself); I lean towards libertarianism, but understand the moral hazards of it. I just know for a fact that no other candidate will cut the federal budget or at least stop it's growth, the government is scarily big and some of these ideas that both democrats and republicans have put forth are equally scary. America is in bad shape financially, and both another war, socialization of more services, and just an overall expansion of government could push it over the edge to eventual collapse. I don't like all of his ideas, but I'd rather the executive and legislative be stuck in a quagmire against each other than for them to be driving this nation into the ground.
What exactly is batshit crazy about limited government? I don't really understand how anyone can call Ron Paul batshit crazy if they researched him; McCain says he wouldn't mind a 100 year war in Iraq and Democrats want to expand government when it's already in bigger debt than the market capital of every public company on earth if you include Medicaid and Social Security obligations (~$60 Trillion). America is in trouble financially, and at least Ron Paul has the ball to say that it is. Though I don't agree with all of his policies (especially Austrian economics), I can tell you for a fact that he isn't "batshit" crazy.
Wouldn't nature be solving it through us? I don't know the rules of what "nature" is but I figure that conscious thought and reasoning exists for some reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you, but the simple idea that Ron Paul can get 15% of the vote in a given state shows that we indeed have people who care about things outside party lines (even if you don't agree with them.) I don't think many people have the time or vigor to go to a political rally, but that doesn't mean they don't care, or don't want to act. The two party system is pretty ridiculous, but people define the parties, the ideas don't pop up out of thin air. We're a Republic and people can change things without "direct" involvement; which is why the Republican system (not the party) works well in the U.S. The system works, but if I were a conspiracy theorist I'd say it has become too influenced by media...luckily the media is falling out of the hands (ever slowly) of conglomerates and into the hands of the people...and thus the system is reestablished and works again. This is why I think that Google being in China is a good idea. In America we do have a choice, and until you don't have one, you'll never know that you did...I guess you could say we are spoiled. In America we can flip a coin and choose heads or tails, in China they have to choose tails, which is an actual illusion of choice as opposed to having two choices like us.
I don't know if you could say they are content with their government, seeing as most are probably afraid to stand up to it and others simple don't know if there are better ways to govern the people. I doubt many in the U.S. are content with their government, luckily we have elections, free information and free speech...they have...uhh a censored Google index.
What are you five years old? You called out social features that you don't even know about. Ever heard of Last.fm...oh yes, music is totally to shut people out. Get out of the house and go to a concert and stop with your egotistical posts of utter bullshit that say things like "Sadly, your post says more about your own insecurity than it does anything about Apple product users."...trying to take the high ground? I can tell by your post that you're lying through your finger tips otherwise you wouldn't have added "(even if, like in my case, they are all made by Apple)" What a joke, I can't believe some clown modded you up, like I said; "circle jerk"
You realize that the term "squirt" is a really old computer term...right? I suppose you wouldn't be on Slashdot if you didn't know that; then again iPods do seem to have a good social feature I hear...I think it's called a "circle jerk"..."Oh you own an Apple product too!? You're so artsy!".."Oh, don't be so coy! I have run OSX too, I can't believe Vista sucks so much, screw the Zune...I've never used either of them, but...LOL Micro$oft...see what I did there with the $ sign, ahaha, totally awesome."
So, all I've read here is complete garbage on how Microsoft's Zune sucks...when no one here has ever even seen or used a Zune more than likely...as some have stated at least. So let me break it down for you...the Zune as a HDD player is better than the iPod Classic, the Zune as a flash player is just as good as an iPod Nano. I've own 3 iPods, and I've own 1 Zune 80. So far, I love the Zune much more than the iPod; just yesterday I received a Zune software update which has finally made the software not a complete piece of crap. There are great social features, radio, wireless, a slick interface, a "squircle" which is surprisingly easier to use than a scroll wheel. Go to Best Buy and play with a -new- Zune...aka second generation. The first generation, I frankly found to be a brick with a screen; however the Zune 80 is a different beast. The screen is beautiful and it has so many more features than an iPod equivalent. Now you can sync your Zune with WMP or iTunes thanks to a hack (Google it.)
It really is a good device and Microsoft is making steps to combine the Xbox Live Marketplace with the Zune marketplace, which (in my opinion) will finally give iTunes a competitor. Anyhow I am willing to bet this technology never sees the light of day, a) the source is a blog on at New York Times and b) DMR has been a market failure. Just because Microsoft has blueprints of it, doesn't mean it will go to market; Microsoft will likely filter it through market testing or dumb it down just enough so they can find a happy medium for publishers and customers. The problem is that Microsoft needs to listen to the publishers, because they have such a small marketshare; Apple doesn't have an obligation...yet because of its massive marketshare; like I said though, Microsoft has plans to combine the Zune Marketplace and the Xbox Live Marketplace...and I think that could eventually compete with iTunes quite nicely, especially with the Zune's wireless syncing capabilities and the Xbox's user base.
I've been through 3 iPods and jdecided to test the Zune when the second generation came out, and I love it's interface more than the iPod interface... I'm going to guess you've never spent more than 5 minutes with a Zune v2. So frankly I'm going to go with my experience over your "Nephew's", the iPod touch is a different issue of course...but as far as flash and HDD based players go, the Zune wins my vote. It's not like the iPod has been the best in the industry as an overall player all these years. The main reason the iPod was a success, is that Apple marketed it perfectly as a fashionable player. That and it really wasn't until the Zune's "squircle" that the scroll wheel (in my opinion) was beaten in ease of use. Go play with a Zune v2 (Zune 80 preferably) one day; I assure you, if you look at it without the "Microsoft made...this" perception, you may just well find that you like it more so than the iPod classic/nano.
Yes, Microsoft does have a good index, that doesn't mean they have a better search algorithm for all terms. A lot of Google's indexed sites consist of link farms; and you are making an assumption in saying that people keep switching their browsers over to Google. I'm willing to bet, that in most cases people leave IE with Live Search. Why? Because generally IE users aren't "power users", they aren't going to search as often as users on Firefox or other third party browsers. Google is a powerful engine no doubt, it's the only engine I use, but my point is Live has a good index, and their technology is comparable to Google's. Microsoft is simply making a mistake in their algorithm as they aren't focusing on power users are much as they are general users. Their search engine usage, I have no doubt would explode (in terms of percentage) if they would focus on people who search the most instead of on all peoples; Google because of it's large market share, knows what people click on which makes Microsoft and Yahoo's jobs much harder. Google seems to focus on its power users, but sadly Google's index is so big, that it consists of a lot of spam. That has improved lately, but I remember getting top search results being link farms not long ago. This is one advantage that Live has, they can have a more agile index that may in time, be more relevant with the correct algorithm.
Why would Microsoft axe Yahoo? They would just put them on the same search index and advertising algorithm. Live actually has a good index...I think Microsoft could wait 2 years and they could get Yahoo at half the price, especially the way Jerry Yang is driving it into the ground. He makes Terry Semel look like a genius for crying outloud; Yang needs to let go, he's getting a steal. Microsoft, is good with money pits, they turned the Xbox franchise into a profitable entity and forced Sony to take massive losses in their PS3.
You may think shareholders are idiots, but that doesn't change anything at all; such as,the fact that Yahoo has an overvalued stock because of mismanagement (look at their F P/E and guidance), and disgruntled shareholders as a result (Yahoo didn't even tell institutional owners that Microsoft raised the bid, because, "it wasn't in writing.") So yes, you did miss the point, or chose to ignore it completely. Yahoo is not private, they have an obligation to adhere to the company owners aka shareholders for providing them with equity,; their board is full of clowns. I have a feeling if your stock went from The mid 40s to the low 20s (prior to Microsoft bid) in two years during a bull market run, and still be overvalued, you too would be quite disgruntled and longing for some M&A. There are people who lost tons of money yesterday and over the past 3 years in IRAs, 401ks, etc; not all of them are millionaires; so "hey, you guys are complete idiots, because Yahoo didn't need Microsoft to begin with" doesn't quite cut it. Put your money where your mouth is and take a 45% loss from thousands of dollars in your account because of company mismanagement and then tell me shareholders are idiots.
I don't own any Yahoo stock atm, but they will probably get bought for $33 a share; so your and smart money's rhetoric doesn't mean much anyhow
2000 was the tech bubble burst, that's not even a fair comparison; let's look at Cisco's stock performance, or Amazon's since 2000. What a joke...first the Xbox is now profitable and outperforming the Playstation -former market leader-, the Zune is still very young, Vista is no more a PR disaster than ME was -probably much less of one.- Microsoft still has relative top talent, and every company in the world other than Google has failed to get anywhere in search and advertising. Yeah, thanks for your "analysis."
Yahoo the company doesn't need Microsoft to stay in existance, but Yahoo's shareholders need Microsoft to not have to wait 5 years to ever see $33 a share again. You miss the point that Yahoo is a public company, they have an obligation to look out for shareholders, which they haven't been doing; and their board will pay for it, Yang has already basically pleaded that Microsoft come back. When earlier he called it a "distraction," now he says he's interested in talking more. Ballmer played him very well, shareholders will put more pressure on the board in the coming weeks. I have no doubt Yahoo will belong to Microsoft soon.
Nor would the Justice Department allow such a takeover (Google taking over Microsoft that is). Google really is -currently- just a "one trick pony" as Ballmer has stated before. Whoa, search advertisements...alright. As much as I love Google's products, that market wouldn't exactly be hard to take away from Google. Live's search is actually, honestly probably better than Google's, but I'm so accustom to Google and have a Google account which I love...but that doesn't mean others won't change. I mean teenagers seem to switch email addresses every month, they don't switch Operating Systems. Apple's growth is phenomenal, but it's also a victim of the law of percentages. For example, it's easy to have 50% market growth when you only have 5% of the market. On the other hand Microsoft could have 10% growth with 95% of the market and still be gaining more customers. Microsoft also has manufacturers that have to insure that they remain on top, Dell & HP etc. Google has no one that has to ensure they remain on top, it's easy to set up a publisher or advertiser account over at Yahoo or Live. Anyhow, I think Ballmer handled this deal perfectly and I actually think Microsoft finally is starting to get it. I'll be very interested to see Windows 7, the Zune v2 is amazing, the 360 is amazing, Visual Studio is still the best; Microsoft has done a pretty good job, remember Ballmer has had to wade Microsoft through the tech bust aftermath, that is something Google has never faced and I'd be interested to see how they could handle such an event. I would like to see Ballmer leave soon though, I would love to see what direction Microsoft would go in. I think Microsoft has so much potential to unleash and it might just take a change in management to bring it out completely.
Do you know anything about valuation? Stock dollar value doesn't resemble true value. I just told you that Google has a price to earnings (meaning their earnings per share x their multiple (P/E) = the stock price) So you take Google's share price and divide it by the P/E multiple (~41.82 vs Yahoo's ~ 32.26) and that's how much you they made per share...so Google is actually cheaper than Yahoo...So to put it simply you in fact don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let me break down the math for you...
.76 * their current P/E which is ~32.26 (their FP/E is higher which means they are expected to earn less in the coming year) = 24.51...oh wait, that's their approximate stock price
Yahoo makes 76 cents per share
Now Google makes $14.23 a share their P/E is ~41.82 (their forward P/E is lower, meaning they are expected to make more in the next year)...14.23*41.82 = 595.09...oh man that's their approximate stock price. Madness!
Now Google is expected to make more in the coming year, so it's cheaper, due to the F P/E. I'll do quick math for that too...GOOG is Google and YHOO is Yahoo. YHOO's F P/E = 48.43 their current stock price is 24.47...divide that by their F/PE and you get 0.50 a share...that's A LOT less than they have made in the past 4 quarters. Now GOOG's F P/E = 32.66, their current stock prices is 594.90...divide that by their F/PE and you get 18.21 a share. That's a positive growth rate, YHOO has a negative growth rate, in valuation terms, generally people are willing to pay twice the growth rate...I'll let you do the math with that...but the bottom line is Google is cheaper than Yahoo on a valuation basis.
Note how Google has a lower F P/E...that means it's cheaper, because I'm multiplying the stock price by a lower number. Also, just so you know, the only reason the stock wasn't down more today is because the board is probably going to be ousted by activist shareholders and Microsoft is speculated to come back and buy it for $33 a share.
You mean Microsoft is doing what every other company on earth does in a comparative analysis? That's crazy, it's like what if Apple made a commercial where they assumed all PCs were basically eMachines running Windows 98...I'm so glad they don't do that...oh wait. If you're going to attack advertising campaigns attack everyone who does it (which is everyone) not just the ones you don't like. Then again if you successfully attacked and claimed victory over this advertising method....you wouldn't make much if any money from your blog, considering it's ad driven and your blog is basically just a comparative advertisement anyhow.
I heard the movie budget is in fact a tooth pick, a thimble, a grenade pin and a piece of string.
Microsoft's business is actually doing quite well, have you looked at their profits lately? Their revenue stream? Microsoft needs Yahoo for internet advertising, because that part of their business has been a money pit. Just because you have a bias against Microsoft (obviously), doesn't mean that it's doing horrible. Also, Microsoft withdrew the bid in a formal letter, that does in fact mean they withdrew the offer; previously Yahoo had rejected it but I didn't see their stock tank...but now their stock is about to plummet.
What the board and many here don't seem to understand is that Yahoo's stock is greatly overvalued even in the low 20s...it had a negative/flat growth rate with a forward looking price to earnings well above ~50...Google, which as a HUGE growth rate only has a forward looking price to earnings of ~32. Yahoo could sign a deal with Google and increase profits slightly, but they would have just wasted billions on their new advertising platform "Amazon", and their stock would still be overvalued. The fact that Yahoo didn't take that bid shows how poorly managed the company is. There are going to be a lot of shareholder lawsuits tomorrow morning as the stock drops 20-30%. At this point I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft just stepping in to buy shares and build a position to 5% stake, which is the legal limit before you have to file with the SEC and publicly disclose that you massive stake. At that point they would probably do a proxy battle and would win...getting Yahoo at an even cheaper price. Yahoo's management really is horrible, Ballmer (like him or not) is making a brilliant move. He tried to be generous with a massive premium, now he's just going to give them the traditional Microsoft shaft.
I'm going to have to say that it was discovered, to me this is like asking "did we invent the earth as a spherical object or did we discover it was a spherical object?"...well we invented the term "spherical" and the language to allow that word, but it has almost always been spherical (I know it's not a perfect sphere). The order in the universe which is measured by mathematics have existed before humans...we simply discovered its order and called the order mathematics. Everything we do is in observation and evaluation, we simply shape our society on the order of everything and observe ways to make it work for us.
Why was this even modded up? Anyone who says one platform has zero uses is just a psuedointellectual and pending on the situation either anti-Microsoft, anti-Google, anti-Linux or anti-Apple...of course the former is what it's in style apparently. I run Windows Vista x64, my server runs Linux, and I have a Google account. I used to have an iPod but now I have a Zune. Fanboys lose all credibility with statements like "you should avoid all MS products." If you are going to post such things you are contributing nothing to the conversation but libel; then again I guess we'd only have half the number of comments on any given Microsoft news.
I've been taking Paxil for about 8 months now and I can say that it definitely works, granted I'm taking it for social anxiety more than depression...but it certainly helps, and I can feel myself coming off of it towards the end of the day, so I know it's not merely 100% mental. Also, quitting "cold turkey" really isn't good, like I said I can feel myself coming off of the drug at the end of the day...my dosage is pretty low, so I can't imagine anyone with a high dosage of the same drug (Paxil) being able to quite cold turkey at all without feeling absolutely horrible.
Maybe we'd just shoot down their anti-satellite missiles with our anti-missile missiles?
The GUI I've seen on the base Andriod models look horrible, if they wanted to compete with the "pretty" iPhone they'd more than likely run with Windows Mobile...which is an excellent platform that already integrates with a vast number of programs. Android sounds promising but as of right now it's not what I would call stylish, which is what Alienware shoots for (whether you agree that they meet that goal or not [I'd say their laptops are pretty hot myself])
Uhm, back in the day Yahoo used Google's search index... As much as we joke about Yahoo being nothing compared to Google they get around 2 Billion page views a month, which greatly overpowers Google...if Microsoft can monetize Yahoo properly, well it would be a steal for Microsoft. Meanwhile Google's stock is down 8% today last I checked on the back of missing their earnings and this announcement...Microsoft blew away their earnings, they must be doing something right. Yahoo isn't just a search engine, it's more like the revised AOL...there are talks that Google might look to buy AOL after this move by Microsoft.
I've watched quite a few of his speeches, I don't see how he's batshit insane...I support the guy though, I support him so he can keep all of the truly batshit crazy/fiscally irresponsible people in Congress in check; by vetoing pretty much every bill that isn't responsible or violates the rights of the people. I think the economic policies are quite reasonable, but I think the monetary ideas as it relates to Austrian economics are preposterous (more of a Milton Friedman guy myself); I lean towards libertarianism, but understand the moral hazards of it. I just know for a fact that no other candidate will cut the federal budget or at least stop it's growth, the government is scarily big and some of these ideas that both democrats and republicans have put forth are equally scary. America is in bad shape financially, and both another war, socialization of more services, and just an overall expansion of government could push it over the edge to eventual collapse. I don't like all of his ideas, but I'd rather the executive and legislative be stuck in a quagmire against each other than for them to be driving this nation into the ground.
What exactly is batshit crazy about limited government? I don't really understand how anyone can call Ron Paul batshit crazy if they researched him; McCain says he wouldn't mind a 100 year war in Iraq and Democrats want to expand government when it's already in bigger debt than the market capital of every public company on earth if you include Medicaid and Social Security obligations (~$60 Trillion). America is in trouble financially, and at least Ron Paul has the ball to say that it is. Though I don't agree with all of his policies (especially Austrian economics), I can tell you for a fact that he isn't "batshit" crazy.
Wouldn't nature be solving it through us? I don't know the rules of what "nature" is but I figure that conscious thought and reasoning exists for some reason.