Slashdot Mirror
Are You Ready for the SCO Blitz?
eibhear writes "Over on Groklaw, PJ has a theory that SCO is about to embark on an astroturfing campaign, based somewhat on Darl McBride's repeated comparison of the Slashdot and Groklaw styles of blogging at the recent SCOForum conference. PJ reckons: 'an astroturf campaign depends upon a non-moderated site, which explains McBride's sudden fondness for Slashdot.' '" The whole thing is really fishy, but the story is really worth reading just to see the weird battle occurring between SCO and Groklaw now.
Microsoft Apologist Apologizes for Microsoft
Rob Enderle Announces Death of Bluetooth
and
Enderle's Ferrari Laptop
have appeared on Slashdot in the past.
This "technology analyst" is also the author of In Defense Of the Microsoft Monoculture and ranted and raved in an "informative" Eweek article about his Windows Ferrari theme and gushed happily about how his colleagues were impressed by it's cool shutdown and startup sounds.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
... and who don't feel like googling in the middle of reading Slashdot posts:
astroturfing: n. The use of paid shills to create the impression of a popular movement, through means like letters to newspapers from soi-disant `concerned citizens', paid opinion pieces, and the formation of grass-roots lobbying groups that are actually funded by a PR group (astroturf is fake grass; hence the term). This term became common among hackers after it came to light in early 1998 that Microsoft had attempted to use such tactics to forestall the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust action against the company. This backfired horribly, angering a number of state attorneys-general enough to induce them to go public with plans to join the Federal suit. It also set anybody defending Microsoft on the net for the accusation "You're just astroturfing!".
For all those who are wondering what "astroturfing" is -- like myself -- here is the Wikipedia definition quoted towards the bottom of the rather verbos Groklaw post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
-----
"Cogito Eggo Sum: I think, therefore, waffle."
In Sydney they call that "getting off at Redfern".
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Check it out!
Nasty isn't it?
would it be interesting for lots of people with an interest in the SCO v. Linux matter to individually purchase single shares of SCOX?
Market cap is $62M, shares at $4 and change, that's about 15M shares outstanding... per Yahoo, over 75% of the shares are tied up in big holders, so individuals could not attain a controlling interest (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SCOX)
but... being an owner of even one share of stock makes the company accountable to the shareholder, with the attendant expense of keeping track of the shareholder, and responding via shareholder relations to shareholders' inquiries.
Shareholders also have the right to nominate directors at the 2005 annual meeting, and to introduce shareholder resolutions to be considered at the annual meeting. Note that as of the 2004 annual meeting, the next meeting was expected to happen around April 19, 2005, and that such proposals are due WELL in advance (4 months anyway)
From SCO: 2004 Proxy statement, including 2005 shareholder meeting info
No proposals have been submitted by stockholders of the Company for consideration at the Annual Meeting. It is anticipated that the next annual meeting of stockholders will be held on or about April19, 2005. Stockholders may present proposals for inclusion in the proxy statement to be mailed in connection with the 2005 annual meeting of stockholders of the Company, provided such proposals are received by the Company in writing no later than November6, 2004 and are otherwise in compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission regulations regarding the inclusion of stockholder proposals in company-sponsored proxy materials.
In addition, the Company's Bylaws permit stockholders to nominate directors at the annual meeting by providing advance written notice to the Company. In order to make a director nomination at a stockholder meeting, a stockholder must notify the Company not fewer than 120days in advance of any meeting of stockholders called for the election of directors. Similarly, the Company's Bylaws permit stockholders to cause other business to be conducted at any meeting of stockholders by providing advance written notice to the Company. In order for such business to be conducted at a stockholder meeting, a stockholder must notify the Company not fewer than 120days in advance of the meeting of stockholders. Assuming the date of next year's annual meeting is April19, 2005, any notice required under the Bylaws as described in this paragraph must be received by the Company no later than December20, 2004 in order to be timely for next year's annual meeting. In addition, the notice must meet all other requirements contained in the Company's Bylaws.
A stockholder may contact the Corporate Secretary of the Company at its headquarters for a copy of the relevant Bylaw provisions regarding the requirements for making stockholder proposals and nominating director candidate
Caveats as follows:
The author is not an investment advisor, attorney, or accountant. He's not even wholly qualified to write the letters "SCOX" in a public place. Investing carries risks of all kinds. Owning shares of stock may create tax liabilities and reporting overhead that doesn't exist if you don't own shares of stock. Consult someone who knows what the hell they are talking about before doing anything this stupid.
If SCO or Microsoft (you _know_ they have shills here too) wants to pay me $$$$ to push their agenda, I'll consider the offer.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
The market cap is typically considered the "value" of a company. That SCO's market cap is nearly equal to SCO's cash on hand indicates that the market sees no value in SCO other than in its cash reserves.
I'll have a cry at it.
Investors (i.e. bagholders -- the ones left holding the bag, sort of like the one left standing in musical chairs), they seem to believe that SCO is worth only $62 million. The price determined by the share price and number of shares.
If investors collectively thought the company would be worth more in the future, as they buy and sell shares, the share price would rise to the level that "the market" believes the company is worth (i.e. SCO is worth $500 Gazeeelion Dollarz!).
SCO has $61 meeelion in cash. No debt. Probably some other assets, such as Darl's office chair.
As I said, the share price indicates that investors believe SCO is worth $62 million. (Cash + yard sale price of office furniture)
If SCO were to just liquidate and pay out the shareholders, they would be in exactly the same position they are today. Instead of holding X shares at $4.00 per share, you would be holding X times $4 of cash. No change in your net worth. The reason an investor would generally rather have a $4 share than a $4 cash is because they believe that the price will go up above the $4 they paid for the share so they can sell it.
I'm not a finance guy. My rambling probably has you throughly confused now.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
It's more than just coincidence that SCO and Hatch seem to have similar agendas. Hatch's son is actually SCO's lead attorney in the state courts.
There is not a direct link from her article "Blow by Blow", but there is links to his Keynote from Joe Barrs article, which is what she is in turn talking about.
There is also one from the Line By Line analisis done by the Law Student. So, she did link to them indirectly.
One of her main points, was that Enderle claimed Groklaw had people posted in the audience to misrepresent what he said, when there was no "Posting" of his speech directly on Groklaw.
A least that is what I got from the article.
Scott Carr
I wouldn't consider Mormons to be Christians in the current sense of the word. They quote texts as canonical that were never even considered by any council, nor do they believe in the triune godhead. It's nitpicking, I know, but there are various issues in the underlying belief systems that are too different to consider them one and the same. It would be better to describe the Mormons as a Christian-informed religion, though not a sect within Christianity.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
http://buck.com/call/KG6NVN