Most any college team I know of (SEC ones in my experience) MAKE the universities money by the barrel full.
These teams not only support themselves, but pour money back into the general university system.
Check your stats a bit more carefully.
The University of Kentucky athletics department brings in about $60 million/year in revenue.
That funds their budget (and Calipari's grotesque salary). Roughly $1 million, IIRC, makes its way back into the general university system.
Seriously, it's a very useful tool to get the gist of things.
More amusingly, it come up with gems like this, (FTA):
The circus is armed: who is better at cutting the world?
No, they announced they will drop support, but not until HTML5 storage support is in, which is already supported by Internet Explorer 8, Firefox 3.5+, Safari 4, Google Chrome 4, and Opera 10.50.
"I used to agree with this...but now that I have spent more time in a business setting, I can say that there are very real reasons why top posting and html email make sense."
Then fail to provide any reasons why top posting would make sense.
It's also the same with Firefox and their rejection of anything but Theora
More like vice versa. Theora is an extension of VP3, the only codec whose patent holder (On2) has licensed it worldwide for use in software meeting the definition of free software. All other codec owners have rejected Firefox.
Meaning this happened before and they still were not prepared?
Why in the hell is the max $75 million?
The fund for oil spill cleanup aught to be every dime they ever made not a tax I pay. You make the mess you clean it up.
>
This reminds me of the IBM Secure Cryptoprocessors, which are *pretty much* physically secure. But still people get in now and then usually through software or neat stasis tricks so the device can't respond to your intrusion.
I know Markus Kuhn et al have published some software-based attacks against CCA (the standard software IBM ships with the coprocessor), all of which have been fixed. I have not seen anything about a successful attack against the secure hardware enclosure. Got a link?
Are you trying to say that the WSJ is something good, and hence he can”t be that bad? I’m sorry but that doesn’t work, since the WSJ in now included for the very reason of fitting the rest of his portfolio perfectly, in terms of crappiness. ^^
No, I'm saying that the post to which I responded in which the poster said he'd pay for the WSJ but not for Murdoch's crap is internally inconsistent...
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?