Google stock is amazing

But if we are showing off share prices; Microsoft's shares number in the tens of Billions. I continue to become amazed at the lengths Google will go to look impressive. Any other company would split it shares at $80, $100.

If that makes google evil then berkshire is lucifer himself
Ticker: BRK.A
89000.10
Market Cap. 112.2 Bil

Originally Posted by deverhart If that makes google evil then berkshire is lucifer himself Ticker: BRK.A 89000.10 Market Cap. 112.2 Bil

Wow; that is pretty high :P I didn't even insinuate that Google was evil because it has high share prices, I said basically that it enjoys showing off, an has kept its share price high like that so that it can.

Originally Posted by bexil So basically you are disagreeing with the entire idealism that this country was based on? Are you saying the the Free Enterprise System that has brought this country to be the most powerful in the world.. is just.. "pig-doggery"? You feel that a cooperation, selling stocks to keep it going, to keep funding going, is unjust? Are you saying that the Market Economy that this entire country as a whole is based on, the economy that has kept this country going, that has helped this country flourish.. is just.. skat? Stocks are not "Pig-Doggery", stocks are what keep this country moving.. Market Economy is an econom based on private ownership of bussiness.. It's what seperates us from the Socialists.. and Communists.. Private Ownership of Bussiness. Thats all a stock represents..

If we're going into Basically, then yes, yes I do I am saying that the Free Enterprise System that has brought your country to the most powerful in the world is just 'pig-doggery'. I would say that buying stocks is an unjust excuse to make money without talent. I cannot admit to knowing what Skat is, although it does sound pleasantly humourous, but I would say the Market Economy is almost certainly not the most honourable fashion to run a country. It keeps people with no talent in power while those with it can go their whole lives without it being realised. It promotes those with connections while leaving those without, it pays people based on position rather than work done. It allows companies to open and close at will without reason, or repercussions.

Why should companies be privately owned? The people who start companies and make them big and drive competition should be rewarded it is true; but why does that person have to own that new company in order for him or her to be rewarded for that genius? The market economy is the most hypocritical system ever invented; it is the only system in the world whose Holy Grail is outlawed; Monopoly.

Your only theories of Socialists and Communists are what? Stalin? The Cold War? The Command Economy in those systems is what you point at; but you direct the words at the system that uses it instead. Why? To bring up images of things that Socialists and Communists have done; few of which are a representation of what a Command Economy does, and none that anybody here is going to think about when reading the words. Socialists and Communists use the Command Economy; Communism and Socialism are not the only systems which can use it.

You don't need to be oppressive and dictatorial in order to make a command economy work as it did for the Soviets in turning them from the most backward country in the western world to a country second only to the United States in only ten years. Had Nazism and its privately owned businesses not intervened the next two five year plans would have almost certainly have brought living conditions up to levels even Americans of the time would be pleased with, through a command economy. There is evidence of this in the five year plan started just before Germany Attacked. Without that economy that managed to organised a resource level no other country will ever control Hitler would have turned Moscow into a rubble pit in a year and given Germany the resources and cities to help us all learn German.

Privately owned business is just a way for the rich to stay rich long after they have stopped using the talent that made them rich; if indeed they were ever talented. The is nothing good a Market Economy does that a Command Economy doesn't twice as fast and three times as organised.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn I'm sure you can use ASP.NET to use MySQL, and PHP to use MSSQL. Indeed I'm positive PHP supports most if not all Database Formats. But somebody who is going to want to use PHP for a Database driven site is very rarely going to use MSSQL because if they're using PHP, they have probably already chosen their team. They'll want to use MySQL. Without MySQL, they would have to for cost effectiveness use MSSQL; and if they're going to use MSSQL they'll already have a Windows Server, so they will of course use ASP.NET.

Yes, obvious to say you go with what you have... But if you look back to the dawn of PHP, it was a CGI binary written by a single person to manage his CV and a few other things... It has grown, and alot of support has been added... Not neccesarily becuase its practical, but becuase the developers want to make sure it can do everything it might ever need to.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn I have not considered any of those possibilities because I cannot see a great difference between PHP and ASP.NET, other than Trademarks, legal rights, and the fact that with ASP.NET you use whatever Programming Language you are cool with, rather than the PHP Language, and you get loads of from the box features you don't have to code yourself :P

Again, there is differences between every language. I really dislike the ASP.NET code style, but thats just me. The key word is integration, and with PHP Data Objects, you can literally have support for every database with one function set. (eg: Instead of mysql_query(), mysqli_query(), mssql_query(), sqlite_query(), you can use a single PDO object and run: $pdo->query()... Several databases at your disposal right away, without having code specifically for each. Maybe ASP.NET has something similar, either way I dont care.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn The JavaScript Console tool is fantastic though, the Internet Explorer one is not so detailed it has to be said. But other than that, you are talking about an Internet Explorer from a year ago. The Internet Explorer from now, not only has Tabs, but has as many faults as Firefox, not more. The Internet Explorer that lets you have to reformat your computer for using the Internet is only on Windows 98 machines because they are no longer supported.

No, you are wrong. If you mean the upcoming beta release of IE 7, then maybe so, but IE6 is still highly insecure... Simple test of some code in IE 6 let it shut down my computer, and I couldn't stop it shutting down. This is what makes the CURRENT IE version much more inescure than firefox. Every browsers is going to have security risks, at least firefox can try and keep up with them and combat them as they arise.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn People only ever seem to give impressions of Internet Explorer from their own experiences over a year ago, presuming either that it hasn't changed purely because it is still version 6, or that it will never change.

As I said, I'm using the latest version of IE 6, and I see little improvement except in the rendering of XHTML. And to be fair, after all the time it has been, its fair that people could be forgiven for assuming microsoft had forgotten about IE.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn Open Source Developers who have well paying jobs in proper development are worse than my pleasant generalisation (Linux-Folk) of a moldy programmer, perhaps 19, with cheese burgers around him, weighing in at 30 stone, and hacking porn websites. An Open Source Developer who then works in the real world developing proper software is a turncoat and a traitor to both factions. How can you trust or respect the work of a person who says one thing, and gets paid for another? It is like a Hippi pro-life Liberal selling Weed and Tye Dye T-Shirts by the side of the Motorway by day and joining in on rallies calling for Peace on Earth, and working as a professional assassin by night.

The fact is, you have again, very over-generalised what you just said... I know you probably find your self very amusing but when I read stuff like that I just feel insulted. Not becuase I meet your description but becuase you can't seem to delve any further than looks as a test of character. So what if they are overweight. Stephen Hawking is in a wheelchair and cannot speak, yet he is the most intelligent person on the planet (IMO at least), however if you looked at him without knowing, you would probably think very differently.

Also, what is wrong with having 2 points of view.... I mean, on the one hand, yes it would be nice if all software was free, but what about clients who need a very specific feature set that literally 0.0001% of the rest of the world will need... No-one would want to develop that kind of software. Open source is about the community too... A programmer shouldnt have to put up with people like you complaining that "you make a living AND write programs in your spare time", which is basically what you are saying.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn You are probably confusing 'Open Source' and 'in a University'. While a lot of the things I'm using right now were invented in a University, that doesn't make them Open Source, because right now I couldn't change them; sure I could see how it has been made, but I couldn't take it, change it, and release it myself. The are probably things that are helping now that are Open Source; PHP for instance, MySQL. But Open Source stories of peace, love, and continuing happiness to all the world's people like those of PHP and MySQL are thankfully rare.

No, I dont think I am confused. You may think that I am confused, but I'm not so, so I guess that makes you the confused one. Firefox is OpenSource, you can download the full source on the site, same with all the Moz applications. Wikipedia has a completley opensource program as well as information... I dont think OpenSource success stories are rare.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn A company is a type of person. It is an entity of lots of people, a company would not exist without its people. If you need money to progress your business you work harder and better to get that money, or at least outsource valuable assets. The moment a company sells stock it is not its own commander anymore; its President is impotent and talentless buggers with more money than decency command the company in only one direction, towards the accumulation of more money.

Oh, and I mean im sure the company wouldnt have been looking to make money in the first place... Funny story actually... ALL companies just want to make a difference in the world. Of course, evil stock holders come in and make the company make a profit. How terrible.

I really cant understand your view on this... The goal of a company is to make money. Not to say that there arent other goals as well, but in most cases the priority is either survival or profit. If a company wants to expand further, then they can sell stocks in the company. I think its a great way for a company to gain the extra funds they need to start making serious money.

Originally Posted by ev5 Yes, obvious to say you go with what you have... But if you look back to the dawn of PHP, it was a CGI binary written by a single person to manage his CV and a few other things... It has grown, and alot of support has been added... Not neccesarily becuase its practical, but becuase the developers want to make sure it can do everything it might ever need to.

I did not complain about the need for supporting other Database types :P Nor indeed did I wonder why those features were there. You said: 'I dont know if you know (of if in fact, anyone knows), but you dont have to use ASP to run MSSQL... PHP aslo supports it, as well as many other database technologies.' To my comment on without MySQL PHP would probably not exist, commenting that perhaps the link between MySQL and PHP was not actually so strong as I said. I then commented that the link between PHP and MySQL is actually as strong as I said, using various connections about how people go with what they have. So I'm not sure now where you're going with this bit...

Originally Posted by ev5 No, you are wrong. If you mean the upcoming beta release of IE 7, then maybe so, but IE6 is still highly insecure... Simple test of some code in IE 6 let it shut down my computer, and I couldn't stop it shutting down. This is what makes the CURRENT IE version much more inescure than firefox. Every browsers is going to have security risks, at least firefox can try and keep up with them and combat them as they arise.

Nah... I mean the actual release Internet Explorer 6 that all computers by now without a great deal of effort by the owner will have (the SP2 version). Now I dread to think how you managed to make code to shut down your computer; but I am sure there are far more important things to do? The point is of course however you did it, you did it with the specific aim of doing it, and the page probably used some interaction to do. Eitherway, if that was on a real site and people came across it, if people used the Windows Tool for sending Error Reports it would be found by the Internet Explorer Team and fixed in a month. This would not worry that person; because they would not do it again.

Originally Posted by ev5 As I said, I'm using the latest version of IE 6, and I see little improvement except in the rendering of XHTML. And to be fair, after all the time it has been, its fair that people could be forgiven for assuming microsoft had forgotten about IE.

See little improvement; the idea of the SP2 Intenet Explorer upgrade is that you don't see improvement, you see the Internet :P It is afterall, an Internet Browser. The idea is you don't see the browser at all; it just works.

Originally Posted by ev5 The fact is, you have again, very over-generalised what you just said... I know you probably find your self very amusing but when I read stuff like that I just feel insulted. Not becuase I meet your description but becuase you can't seem to delve any further than looks as a test of character. So what if they are overweight. Stephen Hawking is in a wheelchair and cannot speak, yet he is the most intelligent person on the planet (IMO at least), however if you looked at him without knowing, you would probably think very differently.

Haha. Well... it is pretty funny You should get a sense of humour. Of course the average Open Source Developer will not be anything like the humourous Linux-Folk analagy I use of the perhaps 19, with cheese burgers around him, weighing in at 30 stone guy who hacks porn websites. I realise this, you realise this. The point is to visualise the person as he, or indeed she would be in a cartoon, and take the charactor of the person (I know a lot of people who do fall under the Linux-Folk group, none look like that), and put it on the person physically for a better description.

Originally Posted by ev5 Also, what is wrong with having 2 points of view.... I mean, on the one hand, yes it would be nice if all software was free, but what about clients who need a very specific feature set that literally 0.0001% of the rest of the world will need... No-one would want to develop that kind of software. Open source is about the community too... A programmer shouldnt have to put up with people like you complaining that "you make a living AND write programs in your spare time", which is basically what you are saying.

No; I am fine with people making a living, but what they are doing if they do that is basically saying one thing and doing another. That is so wrong its crazy. It really is. And if you don't see, then you probably will never. I suppose it is a personal thing whether you approve or do not about the sort of hypocracy that is involved in working for a proprietory company to pay a life of making Open-Source software and blogging about how great it is. Especially if that company is doing the same software as the person is doing, because the person is not going to do the best work he can for that company. If it was ever in charge of somebody who was doubling, I would move him or get him fired. Nobody likes a turncoat.

It would be like me working at Microsoft, and making open source software; taking no time over my Open Source software, saying how bad Open Source is on Forums and stuff, and expecting the team I'm in to approve?

Originally Posted by ev5 No, I dont think I am confused. You may think that I am confused, but I'm not so, so I guess that makes you the confused one. Firefox is OpenSource, you can download the full source on the site, same with all the Moz applications. Wikipedia has a completley opensource program as well as information... I dont think OpenSource success stories are rare.

I am not using Firefox to view the Internet :P I do not look at Wikipedia, and Mozilla Applications under that name (I have Firefox) have never been on my Computer :P So you are obviously confused about the stuff I am using to view the Internet. The Protocols, the wiring, the software on the exchanges, the software at my ISP. With the exception of the Server this site is on (is it Linux? not sure) everything I am using to see this site is Proprietory.

Originally Posted by ev5 Oh, and I mean im sure the company wouldnt have been looking to make money in the first place... Funny story actually... ALL companies just want to make a difference in the world. Of course, evil stock holders come in and make the company make a profit. How terrible.

Well, I certainly hope they wouldn't have been! Nah, I see what you're saying. I realise not all companies want to make a difference, indeed probably very few by the time they're companies. But at one point in at least some companies' lives somebody made an ingenious idea and though let's sell this it is great! That is the innovation that stock holders but not only stock holders, businessmen in general, kill.

Originally Posted by ev5 I really cant understand your view on this... The goal of a company is to make money. Not to say that there arent other goals as well, but in most cases the priority is either survival or profit. If a company wants to expand further, then they can sell stocks in the company. I think its a great way for a company to gain the extra funds they need to start making serious money.

The opinion is not that stock holders are bad because they drive the company to do nothing but make as much profit as possible. It is that they are bad because they get money out, more than they put in, for doing nothing. They should get their money back, maybe a little profit for interest, and be done, but they don't. They are even given powers within the company! They sit outside with too much money, do nothing, and they have control of a company. That was even what I said; selling stock is about giving away control of a company to people who without a stockmarket would have no particular talents other than as Tax Men.