Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Dyn-O-Mite!, Paper, Sploits
"Kilby ... Kilby .. Kilby ..." [WHACK!] BMagneton writes: "The Nobel Prize for Physics was just awarded to several electronics pioneers, notably Alferov and Kroemer, who invented a bunch of semiconductor device construction methods, and Jack Kilby, who pretty much invented the microchip. The Nobel seems to have gone to a more practical/applied achievement than it usually does." And sconeu writes: "Wired News reports that Jack Kilby have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his part in the invention of the IC. The prize was split with Herbert Kroemer of UC Santa Barbara and Zhores Alferov of Russia who worked on semiconductor development as well."
And as "Boo," acclaimed international film star Keanu Reeves! Godzookie2k writes: "I was bored out of my mind the other night, and stumbled to boo.com's old site to see what would pop up. Mouth agape, I read: 'Boo.com returns, October 30, 2000.' yippie, you can download the official "boo" screensaver and enter some contest. See for yourself."
Some things are worth bringing back (Old Coke, bermuda shorts), and others may not be. Frankly, I'd never heard of Boo except maybe vaguely in the background until they went bust, time number one. On the other hand, our friend Pee-Wee was pretty funny in Mystery Men, so maybe anything is possible.
A browser for your naked (P)PC; combine with image filtering, stir. Mozilla keeps getting better -- I'm not afraid to show it to anyone right now, for instance -- but it's not exactly lightweight. Anyone who's been following the progress of Galeon may be interested when Markos writes: "Tired of waiting for a lightweight browser, that supports https, frames and all the other good stuff? BrowseX may be what your looking for. 'BrowseX is an Open Source, cross-platform Web Browser written primarily in Tcl.' You can check out the screenshots, features, and download." Or, for those of the Motorola persuasion, you'll be happy to hear that, as sephus writes "Opera for Linux PPC is now available at http://opera.online.no/linux/tgz/ - by popular request from Slashdot readers :) Opera"
Remember, retailers, you better not install these on computer that you know full well are going to be loaded with a god-fearin' American OS-thingie, like Innernet 'Splorer!
"OK, Mr. Gates, Meet Mr. Ponzi. Howdya do?" robl writes "There was a suprisingly under-ranked comment in the Microsoft story yesterday [about Microsoft and Taxes], pointing to the Fool's take on Microsoft's tax situation. It does a great job of clarifying the sfgate article yesterday. You see, Microsoft exercises it's stock options by printing more stock certificates. So they really only lose the cost of the paper and toner to print the stock, and they gain the money from the employees who exercise the options."
In fairness, this is approximately the same system used to fill the hypothetical coffers of the Social Security administration, but MS probably doesn't pay $534.55 for each toner cartridge ;)
My god! And they claim to be secure!? sporri writes: "The OpenBSD homepage has been updated (or downgraded) and now announces "Three years without a remote hole in the default install!" after a root hole was discovered and exploted in a library used by chpass. The sad thing it was fixed in the "current" source tree in June.UpsideToday has an interview with Aaron Campbell." If that's the worst you can say about an OS's security, it's a pretty strong endorsement for it being exemplary in that regard. OpenBSD and Debian get my vote for Most Serious Projects. Comments on the strongest security for (any particular) default Linux distro? Makes me think about Bastille Linux ...
Three years ago I spent an insane amount of time downloading Slackware 3.5 from ibiblio (ne metalab, ne sunsite) onto all the floppies in the world, using a text-based Dos 'net all-in-one program called Nettamer that was absolutely hideous (small example: the mail menu was displayed in a spreadsheet: obviously the guy had just grabbed the code from some old program and shoved it in). I ended up having to reinstall Slackware a couple times w/the floppies before it finally worked. And I loved it.
I switched to Stormix earlier this year, in a fuzzy attempt to upgrade to libc6 and possibly get a job w/the company (no luck). It's a really slick distro: it configured my sound card, X windows and everything else all in one go; just four clicks and thirty minutes, like you said.
But...truth be told, I miss sitting around with 872 floppies, feeding 'em in one after another. The sense of accomplishment when you made it to the end was sweet.
I could get a CD, and someday I think I will again. But I also think the only thing that would give me the same sense of down-and-dirty hacking would be the roll-your-own option. I think I'll end up doing that sooner than I buy a Slackware CD. If I don't climb mountains, or wrestle bears, or know thirty-two ways to kill a man with a paperclip, I've got to get the testosterone flowing somehow...:-)
Carousel is a lie!
You missed the point. Microsoft *DOES* pay taxes, and their employees *DO* end up with fair 'wages'.
They simply get a tax exemption for paying their employees, like any other companies. This would happen whether they were paid in cash or options, or new cars.
The real issue, from an investor point of view, is that the only reason microsoft can get away with doing this (financially speaking) is because their stock price still goes up. A normal company would just dilute it stock, drive the value down, and it would end up costing them the same as if they had paid their employees cash.
The government would get *NO MORE* income tax out of them if they simply paid their employees in pur cash.
"Maybe it's the fact that it doesn't have a curses or X-based install,"
.."
I've been using Slackware since 2.3 (when I first started using Linux), and still use it today. AFAICT, it uses an ncurses based install. Perhaps it would've been better to say, "just because it doesn't have an X-based install routine
--
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Because the guy who bought Boo, Boo's former competitor, bought the entire company for chump change. The place could make a buck a year and still be profitable. I'm exaggerating, of course.
The whole thing (about Boo) was on 48 hours (US TV show) the other day.
--
Now they're planning a comeback...and even their announcement page has big graphics and javascript. They've commited the sin of disabling the back button to escape from the site. It really doesn't seem like they learned much from their original mistakes.
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Did anyone else not notice the capital X and think "brow sex? I didn't know my eyebrows had sex!"
Maybe it's just me.
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
They don't guarantee a return on the purchase of their stock, as Mr. Ponzi did on his promissary notes.
However, their apparent profits are based on the same pyramid principle: new capital provides the return on investment for old investors.
This is what happens when people think that a simple extrapolation of past results is a reasonable model of future results.
An illustrative game: Gimme Double!
You hand someone a penny, and say "if you give me twice what I gave you, I might give you twice what you gave me".
They think "what the hell, it's only a penny!" and does it.
It goes back and forth for a while, with both players showing a 100% profit for each transaction (when it comes back to them), and wondering how far they should push it. Both want a significant profit, so they push it at least until it's enough money to care about.
Then one guys stops and keeps the money (hint, only play this game against compulsive gamblers).
In its purest form it's an honest game, just not a sensible one. The problem is when people don't recognize this game (the social stigma attached to gambling helps prevent people from learning these sorts of lessons).
Extend this to millions of players, add tokens to track who gave last, a system that lists the last payments as the "current price", and a class of professional analysts who pretend that it's all a sensible economic behavior, and you've created a pretty good model of a bubble stock like MS. Also, a pretty good model of the whole stock market. Not to mention a reasonable approximation of the monetary/banking system.
(BTW, anyone who sends me a penny at e-gold account number 134343 might get 2 pennies back... in some twisted alternate universe)
--------
My Stupid Patent (for those who care)
:)
A Plan to use Action Describing or Implicating Words in the spoken or written language as a persuasive tool to sell goods and or services.
Our method of Action Describing or Implicating Words (trade name: "Verbs") increases rates of sales by allowing the licensee of the method to fully describe anything, be it an object or an action. This also allows for more persuasive sales pitches! These "Verbs" are the most important part of our method, and should be considered our Intellectual Property. Being that our sales plan relies on this Intellectual Property, all uses not licensed by we, the inventors, are prohibited. Prosecutors will be Violated
Yes. It's a patent on verbs.
"I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
that the original Pyramid scheme (yes, by our friend, Mister Ponzi) was formed using International Reply Coupons? Yes, how incredibly pathetic, but right before the roaring 20's, they were a commodity.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Precisely. In fact, it sort of reminds me of the time I spent in Lima, Peru in the late 80's. Every time the government needed to pay their employees they would simply fire up the printing presses. The money they printed was beautiful, but inflation that this caused was absolutely astounding. The Inti went from 72 to the dollar to millions to the dollar in the space of two years.
Microsoft has been so important to the American economy, and investors have been so positive that Microsoft stock would continue to rise, that they have failed to realize the games that Microsoft is playing. Unfortunately when Microsoft does come crashing down to earth it is going to affect us all very deeply. Many 401Ks and and mutual funds are invested heavily in Microsoft (which is why the price has always gone up). When (and hopefully if) Microsoft tanks it's going to take the entire economy along with it.
Weird.
sulli
RTFJ.
MS DOESN'T PAY ANY TAXES!!!!
MS the corporate entity doesn't pay income tax (though it pays sales taxes and government fees and taxes for this, that, and the other thing... don't confuse "no income tax" with "no tax at all"). MS the co-operating group of workers pays income taxes, MS the group of shareholders pays capital gains taxes. Don't doubt that every dollar MS (the corporate entity) takes in ends up being taxed heavily on the way out, and if more wasn't going out than coming in, it'd be taxed on the way in, too.
If MS the corporate entity paid taxes, MS the group of shareholders would be taxed twice.
Yes, I think you're an idiot, too, for not recognizing the simple difference between a free citizen who spends their money however they please and a corporate entity which exists only to hand over its profits to its shareholders. What you're insisting is analagous to demanding that a vending machine should pay income tax for every quarter that goes into it, even though the owner of the machine must pay income tax on that same income.
--------
Definitely slackware.
Slackware has an appeal to me. Maybe it's the fact that it doesn't have a curses or X-based install, maybe I find pleasure in installing it on a laptop that has only a floppy drive so I have to use 25 disks. Maybe I like having to do it all myself instead of having to press 4 buttons and it be installed, security holes and all. Maybe I don't like package managers. Maybe I like to know where all of my stuff is on my system. Maybe I'm stubborn. Maybe I like to take pride in knowing how it all works.
The interesting part is that I like(d) to use Linux because it was difficult, it wasn't point and click. It was an adventure. Tackling some goal that I wanted to achieve with Linux was FUN. I came out of each one with a mastery over it. I figured out how it ticked! I know how it works. And I took pride in it. RedHat's taken a lot of that away from me.
Slackware is my distro of choice. I'm through with RedHat.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Amen! It's called dillution people. Look it up. I can assure you anyone who's worked at a pre-ipo company is familiar with it. You look at a clueless new hire and think for THIS guy my options are worth less?
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
It does a great job of clarifying the sfgate article yesterday. You see, Microsoft exercises it's stock options by printing more stock certificates. So they really only lose the cost of the paper and toner to print the stock, and they gain the money from the employees who exercise the options.
ummm... excuse me? perhaps this comment was underrated because IT WAS PULLED STRAIGHT OUT OF SOMEONE's ASS!!!
no company, not even microsoft, can just print up more stock cirtificates when they need them. that's like asking why the united states government doesn't pay off it's national debt by printing more hundred dollar bills (aside from the fact that it would take a lot of hundred dollar bills)
every company that gives away stock options has a limited size pool of options that they issue from. if for some reason they need to create more stocks, they have to take away from the existing value of all the existing stock (ever wonder what a stock split is all about?)
anyway, the only thing that gives a stock cirtificate any value is the fact that it represents partial ownership of the company. if a company could just print up stock cirtificates at whim, they would be worthless. (insert obComment about m$ stock being worthless anyway here...)
anyway, i don't know everything about stocks and the stock market, in fact i would say i don't even know a lot. but i know enough to realize that this statement is completely bs, and i'm a little surprized at rob & co for giving it credibility. i would have thought they would have known better.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
I urge all of you to hedge your MS stock exposure with the appropriate investments which will become invaluable after the crash:
- shotgun shells
- canned food
BTW, thanks y'all for correcting me. I read the Motley Fool article, but I thought they were being deliberately misleading to make a more sensational story. I still think it is a bit misleading in the way they present MS as an entirely seperate being who is somehow maliciously cheating both the employees and the shareholders (not to mention the gov't and its customers, while unfairly attacking the industry through monopolistic articles). If they attacked Bill G. specifically, I might have agreed with them. He's the one who profited most, screwed everyone along the way, and set it up the way it is. But just blaming it all on this fictional independent MS boogeyman confuses the issue.
--------
The stock market makes sense when the primary mode of shareholder profit is dividends.
Too bad they stopped doing that due to income tax being greater than capital gains tax.
--------
... resizes your browser window. So, I'm assuming it's a pr0n site, having never visited the thing before today.
Ye Gods and little fishes -- there ought to be a death penalty instigated against web sites that resize your browser window.
Look, people I like my browser windows just how they are. If you screw with them, I'll fix what you fungled and leave, never to return.
Not knowing anything about Boo, I can still say with 100% conviction why they haven't made it. Their home page (as of now, which indicates to me that they've always been like this) is a giant image. This means that it barely gets indexed by search engines. That means nobody's gonna find it.
Good riddance, IMO.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's how basically *ALL* companies deal with stock options.
THe only thing that differs is whether or not the directors permit the company to do so in this manner. This is something *completely* up to them.
I know at one company, it used to be they had to pre-set the # of options set aside for option plans in an 'opton plan for year xxxx' or whatever.
Now, they have the leverage to do so whenever they want (provided they follow the option plan outlined to the SEC).
How MS doing this is something bad, I'm not sure I understand. How they deal with their employee stock options is public knowledge for any potential investor, and to any employee. What's wrong with that?
Also... handing out new shares instead of setting them aside ahead of time is merely a bookkeeping issue. Yes, they dilute the stock by doing so, but given the # of shares outstanding, is it really a big deal?
This is real simple, they lose equity in their company. It ammounts to the existing stockholders deciding to share some of the value of the company with the employees who then cash in the options. When that happens the original stock holders equity is diluted and the own less of a share of the company. There is no money bening magically created here as the articles claim. Ownership is being transferred and capital gains tax is being paid.
? Employees exercising stock optionns incurr a taxable benefit.. and...
Microsoft printing it's own stock certificates instead of using already-set aside stock should be no problem provided it was previously disclosed that this is how it worked. What's the issue?
Okay. BAD REPORTER! BAD SLASHDOT!
I know we hate MS.. but that summary of the fool.com article is *WAY* out of context.
It's not that 'ms simply prints certificates to exercise options'....
THe quote is that 'rather than pay out cash, all MS has to do is have the BOARD OF DIRECTORS VOTE to issue stock certificates for the options.'
This is how *ALL STOCK OPTIONS EVERYWHERE* work. ALL OF THEM.
Also.. the talk of 'put warrants'. These are otherwise known as 'options', as in, options trading. Check out cboe.org (chicago bond & option exchange?). LOTS and LOTS of big companies are listed there and do the same thing.
The context of the fool article is that half of MS income statement can be accounted for on common stock alone, and that it really doesn't reflect their sale of product accurately at all, due to several reasons.
1) Employees are largely paid in options. The benefit to their financial statement here is that the wages they paid out (an incurred expense of business) is significantly less than you would expect, because options issued are not recorded as expenditures.
Employees receive no real benefit here; they are still taxed as if they were paid cash. Read the fool article for details (or learn about employee stock options).
2) Wages paid to employees is tax deductible for Microsoft. By giving them options valued at $xxx, they get the benefit of the tax deduction, without reducing their cash flow, becuase the employees were really paid in options.
3) In fact, on the books, the options actually caused INCOME to come into Microsoft, as employees had to buy them.
Now.. please note. This article is NOT trying to say that Microsoft is cheating on it's taxes, ripping off it's employees, or anything like that.
It's simply pointing out (like the fool always does) that, if you are trying to valuate microsoft and their earnings, as an INVESTOR, you should realize that a *large* part of what they claim as income is coming from their own common stock, and not the products they are selling. Coming by way of tax benefits offset by not spending 'real' money for employee compensation.
BTW... a smaller company can't do this as well, becuase the dilution of their stock from issuing more shares has a much larger impact on the stock value, and paying their employees large percentages of their salaries in options woudl drive the stock price continually downard, defeating the purpose. This only works as long as the company stock value keeps rising. (as long as it's rising, investors don't much care if it's diluted.. as long as it still rises... kind of fucked, eh?)
cboe.com that is.
But, the thing is, employees are no different than mom & pop Farmer who own stock. The fact that the shareholderes are employees has nothing to do with the value of the company.
And from an employees POV, exercised options either ammount to capital gains (US?) or a taxable benefit based on the fair market value of the stock on the exercise date (Canada)
i do believe that 'supposed' would be a Verb(tm).
Better call your lawyers.
"I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
Oh man you're right.
I've been running KDE2 snapshots (after I got bored of the CVSup, compile, repeat process) as well as Mozilla nightlies. I always figured that KDE2 would be my environment and Mozilla my browser/mail client. I tried Konqueror each time, and thought it wouldn't compare to Mozilla.
Boy was I wrong. I installed the latest Beta. Konqueror searched my system for Netscape plugins and automatically used them. Flash works great. Konqueror loads extremely fast and doesn't crash nearly as much. I haven't ran Netscape or Mozilla in weeks.
KMail is great, too. It finally has GPG support, so I'm using it for work email now. I no longer need to copy and paste between Netscape and TKPGP (It's still useful for encrypting passwords). Attachments are easy to view as well, which is why I've used Netscape for so long.
You probably thinking of this:
l
http://web.shorty.com/geeks/96/dec/msg00005.htm
(first link that came up, there are many more)
Okay, so I'm responding to an AC who posted a slobbering adultation of one of slashdot's resident trolls over a commonly known piece of online poetry. I have definitely sunk to a new low here...
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
get someone to explain the time-value of money to you
I understand it perfectly well, but such concepts only have relevance when there is some basic means of extracting the stored value.
With dividends, the profits of the company are put directly into the hands of the shareholders. The stock price can be justified by comparing it to current dividends and projected future dividends, which have a rock-solid base on the company's profits.
Without dividends, the only direct means of extracting money from a company is by breaking it down and liquidating its assets, which consistently will get only a small fraction of the company's true worth. So there really isn't any future redemption or withdrawal of invested capital, just the future chance of reselling the stock on the rootless market.
Cut loose from the foundation of dividends, stock market values float freely (until they happen to dip below liquidation cost and the corporate raiders hit).
As for my crack about the monetary/banking system, that was about the sad fiat money situation. Our money isn't worth anything, and is supported purely by irrational belief in its value.
Usury (in the original sense of "charge for use", I find this term clearer and more descriptive than the euphemism "interest") is entirely sensible and fair: with commodity money (such as gold) it is practically indistinguishable from renting. However, fractional reserve "banking" is a fraud, and non-redeemable banknotes an absolutely absurd fraud.
I know that these things originally were based on the time-value of real money and that banknotes once were warehouse chits for stored precious metals, but the foundation of these systems has been cut away, and they now function as tokens in absurd, senseless games. Only the fact that the vast majority of the population either doesn't know this or finds it so distasteful that they ignore it, allows them to continue to serve the functions they did with their foundations intact. Even so, the small class which really understands the nature of modern money, and profits by playing games with it, can cause terrible damage to the people who don't understand it.
Utterly baseless money is part of the reason that whole countries can just fall apart economically like Russia did. Gold and silver coins might lose half of their value over 10 years, but they never just drop to 1% of their value in a few months like non-redeemable fiat money can. All the industrial wealth and human resources of this superpower were basically intact, but no economic mechanisms to exploit these resources could be formed without a stable currency.
The same thing could happen to any of us who can't give a reason for wanting money other than that other people want it. The market would just have to turn on your country (or collapse into itself, which it can do quite spontaneously, and screw everyone) for a little while to make you and your countrymen into pathetic beggars.
--------
Search engine isn't particularly broken..but you probably want the vulnerability DB anyway:
n dor=OpenBSD&title=&version=any&g t; http://securityfocus.com/vdb/middle.html?vendor=Op enBSD&title=&version=any/A&g t;
A HREF="http://securityfocus.com/vdb/middle.html?ve
MS as a seperate entity from both employees and shareholders? Absurd!
Everyone involved is one or both of these things.
The shareholders are playing the silly game, and the employees are taking a slice here and there from the game as part of their salary.
I don't see anything wrong with the tax deduction, but I'm pretty shocked that they are allowed to report huge profits when they're clearly losing money between profit and expense.
I feel no sympathy for either the employees (who are well-paid by any measure) or the investors (who should know better).
The really brutal part here is that because of the way the monetary system is structured, this could go on forever, and instead of the money ultimately coming from the poor suckers caught in the crash (who chose to take their risk of their own free will), it could come from everyone in the form of inflation (and possibly higher taxes due to government bail-outs). Understanding why is left as an exercise to the reader (hint: first find out how the supply of money can be increased).
--------
Is here. This guy really looked into Ponzi, and his site is the best I've found for explaining what a Ponzi scheme is in detail.
Of course, compared to many offers on the web today, Ponzi's supposed rate of return was downright conservative, but you can tell that Charles Ponzi would have LOVED the web. People are stupider these days, I guess...
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
there have actually been several local root exploits beside chpass recently (all but one were string format related). A few weeks ago, the site read "Only one local root exploit in the past 2 years." SecurityFocus.com's search engine seems dead, so i can't find the exact Bugtraq posts (i clean out my bugtraq file every week or so). But this is nothing new...
--BlueLines "The cost of living hasn't affected it's popularity." -anonymous
If I have a key lime pie I really want to eat and I decide to divide it between me and 5000 other people instead of just me and 5 other people, I've lost more than just the work that went into cutting the pie. I've lost key lime pie.
http://www.upside.com/texis/mvm/story?id=39dceffe0 is the correct link to the article about openBSD
Guess what -- Any company can choose to increase the number of shares outstanding but taking a simple vote at a board meeting. The shares aren't actually "printed" but they sure as hell are authorized, and yes, you CAN do that. James
if MS clearly had a loss, it's not reflected on the balance sheets, nor in the cash on hand, nor in the price of the stock.
It's reflected in the balance sheets they use for tax purposes. The gov't considers it a loss (which is why they don't pay taxes), and I think they're right.
Perhaps I misunderstand the situation, I'm no expert on the details of publically traded corporations. I believe that there are a certain fixed number of stock shares for a company. I find it a little odd that the company can own some of those shares itself, but it apparently can (and this increases the inherent value of all other shares, as each includes ownership of a portion of the company-held shares; but then, all company property contributes to the inherent value of all shares... but what if it bought all the shares? would it just disappear into its own navel? I'll have to look into it some more and see how such absurdities are avoided).
The company could sell these shares to anyone, presumably at near current market value. So when employees exercise their stock options, the company takes a loss roughly equal to the difference between the price the employee pays and the current market value of the shares. Yes, they gain a little cash, but they lose shares of greater value.
Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I have a sneaking suspicion that I am... I hate to think that the system is even more screwy than I thought), but the company isn't free to just print up as many shares as they wish, they have a limited supply. At some point they run out, and either have to buy back stock or stop paying employees in stock options.
However, even if they can just print up stock, it doesn't change things much. In a rational system, printing up more stock directly reduces the value of all existing stock. If you make the assumption that the system isn't rational (despite the fact that you're probably right), then no calculations about value, profit, or loss are meaningful. You can hardly expect the IRS to just say "Aw, screw it! The whole system is fucked up, you guys are a big company, and your stock price is going up, so you must be profitable and we're taking a chunk of what your stock price went up by."
I think the characterization in that article of MS somehow simultaneously scamming the IRS, the employees, and the shareholders alike is very misleading. MS may be a legal entity, but it doesn't have a truly independent existence. From different points of view, MS is a co-operating group of workers, a shareholder-owned engine of profit, and even a branch of the government. The three split up MS's income between them.
I can see the idea of early shareholders screwing later shareholders, but that's about it.
At any rate, the point has been well made by others that plenty of taxes are being paid on those profits anyway. How many times do you think a corporation's profit should be taxed, anyway?
--------
I used to think this was true as well. It's not. Microsoft can print up as many new shares as they want. All it takes is a rubber stamp approval from the board of directors. In fact, Microsoft "manufactured" $10 billion dollars worth of shares in 1999 and only bought back $3 billion dollars worth.
And that is why Microsoft's actions are so dangerous. They are literally betting the farm on the fact that their stock is going to continue to rise. If it doesn't they lose their largest single source of income. If you really are interested I would take a look at the Fool's Report listed in the /. article. It explains the situation better than I could.
From the link:
> As far as I can tell, the single most lucrative product Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) sells is its own stock.
...
So there you have it. $3.1 billion from a tax loophole, $1.3 billion from its employees, and $0.7 billion from put warrants combine to give Microsoft over $5 billion from its own stock in fiscal 1999. And it avoided paying $9 billion in wages. All that from a company that only had $7.8 billion in net income. And as long as the stock keeps going up, they can keep doing that ad infinitum.
I don't keep particularly close attention to the stock market, but a casual eye on the CNN bottom-of-screen listings seems to indicate the MSFT has steadily fallen from the low 70's to the mid 50's over the last six months or so. And that vs, what, 110 or so another six months earlier? It looks like infinitum might get here sooner than expected.
--
Give me a candidate who speaks out against the war on drugs.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
OpenBSD has had remote holes, for example in their ftp server and the DHCP client, they however claim that since these are not turned on by default, they are "Secure by default". Realistically however most people using OpenBSD that need an ftp server were using the default one, and presto, they were vulnerable. Ditto for anyone using DHCP, which is extremely common on workstations, however the OpenBSD people argued that "no sane admin uses DHCP, it has to many security problems", while this is true to a degree (a "rogue" DHCP server can do quite a bit of damage) realistically unless you want to waste a lot of time configuring and maintaining network settings you use DHCP.
OTOH OpenBSD does have by far the best track record when it comes to exploits in the core distro, I should know, I write a weekly Linux digest and a weekly BSD digest, the BSD one takes a lot less effort.
BTW there is an all Linux security mailing list available now; Click here to sign up via the web form
.Hey, what happened to Khaos Linux? I thought they were planning to be the "OpenBSD of Linux". Their site has evaporated (www.khaos.org).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
About a week ago.
RedHat recently bought a company by the name of Wirespeed. Wirespeed does embedded stuff. They were based out of Huntsville. The story goes that Wirespeed was interested in several people from the base. They wanted them to move to Huntsville to join the team, but these individuals didn't want to move. Wirespeed asked what if they opened up an office in Tullahoma, and this team was all over the idea.
So then RedHat bought out Wirespeed, and instead of a Wirespeed office here in town, it became a RedHat office here in town. They are doing embedded stuff. When I was there, one of the guys was working on Linux on an HP calculator. They are hiring.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Comment removed based on user account deletion