Yes, XMind allows you to grab any node and drag it (with the hierarchy under it intact) into any other part of the hierarchy. That was one of my requirements, which a few other mind mapping tools I tested didn't seem to support (or, at least, I couldn't find a way to do it with other tools with just a few minutes of poking around). You can also collapse/expand any node.
Have you tried XMind? I was recently searching for an outlining tool and found it to be pretty good for my purposes. The basic version is free.
Good point. I looked at the Q4 table and thought the original poster got "couple billion per year" by multiplying the revenue by four. I didn't scroll down, so I didn't see that there was a full-year table available showing that they are profitable (but not justifying the "couple billion" number). Thanks for the correction.
To be fair, that's billions in revenue, not profit, so I wouldn't say they "make" a couple billion per year. In fact, the source you linked to shows that their operating income is negative, so after subtracting expenses from that revenue they are losing money. So, they don't have a few billion in spare cash sloshing around -- that $2.6 million is not a negligible amount of money for them. The fact that they still think it is worth spending on lobbying when they don't have a lot of spare money is perhaps an even stronger statement about how effective lobbying dollars are.
I've seen two episodes of Dr. Oz. In the first, he talked about treating a jellyfish sting. Knowing nothing about jellyfish stings, I assume his advice was legit. The second episode he talked about homeopathic medicine and all of the wonderful treatment options it provided. He didn't laugh when he was saying that. I never watched again -- can't trust anything he says to be valid.
but he actually had a reason [this time, lol]
I've read about quite a few of these "Linux blow-ups" over the years, and I can't think of a single instance where I cam away thinking Linus was anything short of fully justified once you actually looked at the context.
I'm in the test group, too. The very first time I saw it, for a split second my brain wanted to think the ads were part of the organic results due to the lack of background color differentiation. Since then, I've not been at all tempted to accidentally click the ads, so I think it will make no difference a few days after they transition people over to the new layout (if they ever do).
That's the way I do it, actually, but it's not very discoverable for new users, so it's probably best to not assume they'll do it that way.
If you click the title bar to move the window around, the area you have to hit would be smaller (must avoid menus) and would vary from one application to another due to differing number of menus. I don't know if that's the "official" reason; it's just a hypothesis.
it doesn't seem to translate well into the corporate profit engine well
Advertising dollars spent on Facebook may be detrimental for companies buying "likes" through Facebook (even directly, not 3rd party). When advertisers figure that out, Facebook is done.
I think the riddle he/she was trying to remember was this one:
There are two people, one always lies and one always tells the truth, but you don't know which one is which. What would you do?
The answer: Pick one, and ask him/her which way the OTHER person would tell you leads to riches and power, then go the opposite way.
I apparently still have the option...
The option to turn the ads off finally popped up for me on a different page, so I've got them disabled now. I just wonder how long they will continue to honor it when stupidity like this causes the majority of people to use it.
Three VIDEO ADS on the homepage, and for FASHION THEATER (whatever that is), no less? Are you completely out of your minds?
And, where is the link allowing people with good karma to disable ads? I've always tolerated the ads in the past to support the site, but this nonsense is ridiculous. I cannot have a bunch of worthless video ads sucking bandwidth away from my VoIP. Either get rid of this nonsense or I won't be coming here anymore.
There still are a few things they do well. For example, their Finance feature is among the best in class of financial information (IMHO).
Except that their charts show the price of the stock/fund without adjusting for dividends, i.e. there is no way to graph "adjusted price" or "growth of a $1000 investment." So, when a mutual fund makes a big capital gain payout, which has no economic significance (they hand you a check for $X per share and the share price drops by $X), the chart shows a big dip. If you try to chart two securities together to compare them it is totally misleading because of the economically meaningless dips when there is a dividend or capital gain payout. They have the data to do this right, it is displayed as the "Adj Close" in the "historical prices" table, but they don't make it available in the charts. When they've been doing something that dumb for over a decade in spite of complaints, how can you trust anything they do?
I have no clue how you get to your Win8 to Unity comparison.
Probably because many of the people that have Windows 8 did not choose Windows 8 -- they got it because it is virtually impossible to buy a computer without it, so the number of computers running Windows 8 is not a measure of its popularity (i.e. how many people actually want it). In contrast, anyone with Linux on their computer made an effort to put it there. Hence, as Anne put it, there is no meaningful way to compare the data.