It is quite possible that the value of the customers doesn't equal their debt. Since they are a public company, they may not be able to simply sell off assets to cancel debt and end up still in operation. Their best bet may be to file for bankruptcy liquidation, but this would stand a good chance of simply interrupting the service for their customers while the liquidation gets handled. Selling off the assets without bankruptcy will probably get them sued. Kind of a catch 22. The customers are worth more, if their still operating, but may be unsellable unless the whole company is bought (not worth it.)
(Where did that figure from above come from anyway? I couldn't find it on the link given.) That's awfully low.
The # is based on speaking with some of their past employees. They mention 1,000 co-located servers, but that's not right, either. They simply spent more on acquisitions then they should and have more debt then they can hope to cover in revenue, (running at seriously negative EBITDA).
This training will have the side effect of making us worth two to three times as much as we are paid now
For one thing, this is either really good training, this estimate is an exageration, or you already work for too little.
That said, the simple solution to employee retention is to make people want to stay. Here are some thoughts from someone already charged with this responsiblity:
Know what they're worth and pay them that.
Create a corporate culture that's enjoyable.
Give them work to do. Oddly, lots of free time at work doesn't make people want to stay.
Let them share in the success of the business.
Run the business like one. Pay what you can, but make sure you gonna stay around. Employees can tell when their employer is failing and leave when they think it is.
Is this training going to add to the bottom line of the business? If new opportunities are created, it should. And that should provide some incentive to make the investment. Show them that the training will do more than simply keep the business relevant. If it will make each employee more marketable, it should make the business more marketable as well. If not, the training is a mistake.
Can you please explain where the possibility for censorship lies? I think I'm missing something here.
The point of this exercise seems to be making navigation revolve around the 'what' of the information instead of the 'where'. So, if I want to go looking for yahoo.com/nazi_auctions, I no longer simply ask the DNS server for the IP yahoo.com and then ask the server for nazi_auctions. I ask a distributed DOI database for the whole thing, if I understood it correctly. Conceptually, this would mean that intermediaries will know 'what' I'm looking for and not just 'where' I'm looking for. That's what I mean.
[ Intel ] Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday November 22, @01:21PM
I think it would be better under humor, if, as you say, you can call it that.
I knew what to expect going in, I'd just rather it not be thought of as news, when the story is really about bashing someone. Or was the news that someone else posted a story, on another site, bashing someone. How 'bout simply posting news and let the crowd bash or not?
People can't even get DNS right. Does this guy seriously think that people will actually make a more complex system work. To quote the article (bold by me):
Under the handle system, my last column might have an
identifier like: "10.12345/nov0700-zaret". In this fictional
example (since MSNBC doesn't use the handle system),
"10.12345" is MSNBC's naming authority, and
"nov0700-zaret" is the name of the object. MSNBC would
then keep a record in its handle registry that told the
computer what server the object is on, what file it's stored
in, as well as the copyright information and anything else it
may want in that record. No matter where the file is moved,
you would be able to use the handle to get to it,
as long as
the record is updated.
Oh, and think of the new and exciting ways things can be censored. Filtering information by it's nature sounds like a real possible evolution of this.
Can't we just have IPv6 and take it from there? I'll take my class A and give an IP address to everything I want people to go straight to.
I don't mind these stories, but how about a "bashing" category that we can choose to filter. Calling this "news" is plain wrong. This should have been marked humor, or something.
I don't know much about the benefits/downfalls of partnerships versus corporations. Both help protect the owners from liability.
However, I usually see small companies opting for S corps instead of partnerships.
Disclaimer: IANAL/IANAA, you should get one of each.
I've seen this as well. It's my understanding that S Corps don't file Income Tax. Instead, all profit or (loss) goes through to the share holders.
If the business is losing money on paper, this benefits S corp share holders as they can take the loss personally. However, if the business is making a profit, on paper, but is tight on cash, you will have to pay the taxes on the profit, perhaps without the compensation to cover it.
It is important to remember that there are two attributes involved in the structure of a company. The first being what type, the second being a shareholder/partner agreement. These are important. Using my example of an S corp making a profit on paper, it is imperitive that the shareholder agreement for an S corp guarantee a dispersment of enough cash to cover the income tax on the profit.
Again, get a lawyer, tell them what kind of business you have (ie. what you do). And follow their lead on how to do it right. Have the courage to ask for other choices when you don't like what they recommend though.
I think, conceptually, anyone is the press. But I think in the context of comparing your product to your competitors, you are acting in your role as an employee of the company.
IANAL, but I think the concept of a free press also means doing the reporting from the outside, in a distant, objective way.
Revealing this nefarious tactic is what Freedom of The Press is all about
Larry isn't 'The Press' though.
I agree that people doing objective reporting should be able to publish benchmarks, EULA be damned.
I also think Larry's got a better product.
I don't think, however, it is unreasonable for Microsoft to be annoyed with Larry for doing this when they have no way of knowing how misconfigured the MS SQL install is vs. how optimized the Oracle install is.
If government agencies feel they have the need to ignore the population they serve and try to draft domestic legislation through an international treaty, something that supercedes the constitution, it's time the government be replaced.
Well, here's the whois record. Should keep right on DNSing until it's actually terminated.
For what it's worth, I've been told by them that the expiration date shown by whois cannot be trusted. Oddly, they rejected my assertion that that is the wrong answer to the question.
Registrant:
Kam Circuits Ltd (KAM-DOM)
Station Road Calne
Wilts, SN11 0JT
ENGLAND
Domain Name: KAM.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact, Billing Contact:
Plumridge, Neil (NPB13) neil@KAM.COM
KAM Circuits Ltd
Station Road
Calne
Wiltshire
SN11 0JT
UK
+44 1249 815 262 (FAX) +44 1249 814 726
Record last updated on 10-Nov-1999.
Record expires on 21-Oct-1996.
Record created on 21-Oct-1994.
Database last updated on 17-Oct-2000 19:17:21 EDT.
... the court case could be part of the reason it remained classified. People don't go to court to prove who did something first unless there's money involved too (meaning the technology had worth in the US.)
There's really little point in advertising your level of technical advancement, since patents and secrecy are mutually exclusive. Better to be secretly ahead of others instead of flaunting it in their face (especially if you cant extort money out of the runner ups in your technology race.)
Also, invalidating the ENIAC patents would simply lead to more competition in the US. (certainly not in the UKs best interest.)
I think it needs to broadcast its address to be addressable.
The chief difference between a cell phone and your home phone is the 'wireless' part. The phone network always knows where to route your home phone calls to because they only need to get to their end of the wire.
For you to receive information from any kind of network, you need to broadcast your location. It's done automatically because many devices, cell phones in particular, might as well be off if their not primed to receive.
It would be nice to be able to turn off the broadcast on things like PDAs, kind of a 'stealth mode'. Or better still, have it constantly listening with a ruleset for broadcasting defined by the user.(e.g. only broadcast on work/home network). Again this would only be useful for things that do more than two way communication.
when the "payment" is access to a service, especially one that can't be bought,
Ummm. If a service can be provided, it/can/ be bought.
That said, minimum wage is all about making enough money with the job you do to put food on the table, roof overhead, etc.
Volunteer work, on the other hand, has no monetary compensation (atleast in the strictest sense) and therefore has no pretext of being a source of income to meet your basic needs.
However, if an organization receives real value from volunteer effort, and pays for that effort with a tangible, transferable asset, then that should be considered an employment contract.
Using your example, a hardware manufacturer produces a new device that needs a driver for your favorite operating system. You write the driver and give it to them, they give you a shiny new device as 'a reward.' The question then comes down to what they do with it. If they deliver the driver freely, they've gained no real value from your effort. If they sell the driver, you should have been paid a minimum wage. If you receive nothing for your effort, then it doesn't matter what they do with it.
It's only a transaction, if each party is getting something real out of it. As far as the government is concerned, transactions where one party puts in labor should be appropriately compensated.
So, what real thing is AOL getting out of these moderators? Nothing tangible, so this shouldn't count. Doesn't matter if it's for profit or not.
Yeah, maybe their chat rooms would be useless without moderators. You know, more than they are with, I mean.;)
Slashdot Mirror
It is quite possible that the value of the customers doesn't equal their debt. Since they are a public company, they may not be able to simply sell off assets to cancel debt and end up still in operation. Their best bet may be to file for bankruptcy liquidation, but this would stand a good chance of simply interrupting the service for their customers while the liquidation gets handled. Selling off the assets without bankruptcy will probably get them sued. Kind of a catch 22. The customers are worth more, if their still operating, but may be unsellable unless the whole company is bought (not worth it.)
--
(Where did that figure from above come from anyway? I couldn't find it on the link given.) That's awfully low.
The # is based on speaking with some of their past employees. They mention 1,000 co-located servers, but that's not right, either. They simply spent more on acquisitions then they should and have more debt then they can hope to cover in revenue, (running at seriously negative EBITDA).
--
For one thing, this is either really good training, this estimate is an exageration, or you already work for too little.
That said, the simple solution to employee retention is to make people want to stay. Here are some thoughts from someone already charged with this responsiblity:
Is this training going to add to the bottom line of the business? If new opportunities are created, it should. And that should provide some incentive to make the investment. Show them that the training will do more than simply keep the business relevant. If it will make each employee more marketable, it should make the business more marketable as well. If not, the training is a mistake.
--
Can you please explain where the possibility for censorship lies? I think I'm missing something here.
The point of this exercise seems to be making navigation revolve around the 'what' of the information instead of the 'where'. So, if I want to go looking for yahoo.com/nazi_auctions, I no longer simply ask the DNS server for the IP yahoo.com and then ask the server for nazi_auctions. I ask a distributed DOI database for the whole thing, if I understood it correctly. Conceptually, this would mean that intermediaries will know 'what' I'm looking for and not just 'where' I'm looking for. That's what I mean.
--
Not to pick a nit, but:
[ Intel ] Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday
November 22, @01:21PM
I think it would be better under humor, if, as you say, you can call it that.
I knew what to expect going in, I'd just rather it not be thought of as news, when the story is really about bashing someone. Or was the news that someone else posted a story, on another site, bashing someone. How 'bout simply posting news and let the crowd bash or not?
--
Oh, and think of the new and exciting ways things can be censored. Filtering information by it's nature sounds like a real possible evolution of this.
Can't we just have IPv6 and take it from there? I'll take my class A and give an IP address to everything I want people to go straight to.
--
I don't mind these stories, but how about a "bashing" category that we can choose to filter. Calling this "news" is plain wrong. This should have been marked humor, or something.
--
So, will "Whistler's mother" be the default wallpaper?
--
or the source photos.
Of course, Linus doesn't have a patent on the source code.
--
The aricle is dated today and says the guy was arrested last night. They're probably just a bit behind.
--
Their not auctioning off the spectrum itself, but rather the right to use it, lest we have anarchy with people stamping on each other's signals.
--
The people submitting and reviewing the patents are themselves proof of prior art!
Genset - "We'll be the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes (tm)!"
Arrgh! This is annoying.
--
I don't know much about the benefits/downfalls of partnerships versus corporations. Both help protect the owners from liability. However, I usually see small companies opting for S corps instead of partnerships.
Disclaimer: IANAL/IANAA, you should get one of each.
I've seen this as well. It's my understanding that S Corps don't file Income Tax. Instead, all profit or (loss) goes through to the share holders.
If the business is losing money on paper, this benefits S corp share holders as they can take the loss personally. However, if the business is making a profit, on paper, but is tight on cash, you will have to pay the taxes on the profit, perhaps without the compensation to cover it.
It is important to remember that there are two attributes involved in the structure of a company. The first being what type, the second being a shareholder/partner agreement. These are important. Using my example of an S corp making a profit on paper, it is imperitive that the shareholder agreement for an S corp guarantee a dispersment of enough cash to cover the income tax on the profit.
Again, get a lawyer, tell them what kind of business you have (ie. what you do). And follow their lead on how to do it right. Have the courage to ask for other choices when you don't like what they recommend though.
--
Just call them repeatedly, the phone bill should bankrupt them
Nope. You cannot connect to a US Toll Free number from outside the US/Canada phone system. I'm pretty sure it works the other way too.
--
I think, conceptually, anyone is the press. But I think in the context of comparing your product to your competitors, you are acting in your role as an employee of the company.
IANAL, but I think the concept of a free press also means doing the reporting from the outside, in a distant, objective way.
--
Revealing this nefarious tactic is what Freedom of The Press is all about
Larry isn't 'The Press' though.
I agree that people doing objective reporting should be able to publish benchmarks, EULA be damned.
I also think Larry's got a better product.
I don't think, however, it is unreasonable for Microsoft to be annoyed with Larry for doing this when they have no way of knowing how misconfigured the MS SQL install is vs. how optimized the Oracle install is.
--
There just keeping it up there until they can drop it on something meaningful. Splashing down into the ocean has been done to death.
--
If government agencies feel they have the need to ignore the population they serve and try to draft domestic legislation through an international treaty, something that supercedes the constitution, it's time the government be replaced.
Anyone But Gore in 2000!
--
Sorry. I'm just annoyed at all these people on this board who think that life is a bad scifi flick.
You know, the sad part is that most things that happen in life would leave us howling with laughter if we saw a plot that dumb in a movie.
Works of fiction have a restriction that they need to be believable for the audience to accept them. Reality has no such restriction.
--
For what it's worth, I've been told by them that the expiration date shown by whois cannot be trusted. Oddly, they rejected my assertion that that is the wrong answer to the question.
--
... the court case could be part of the reason it remained classified. People don't go to court to prove who did something first unless there's money involved too (meaning the technology had worth in the US.)
There's really little point in advertising your level of technical advancement, since patents and secrecy are mutually exclusive. Better to be secretly ahead of others instead of flaunting it in their face (especially if you cant extort money out of the runner ups in your technology race.)
Also, invalidating the ENIAC patents would simply lead to more competition in the US. (certainly not in the UKs best interest.)
--
No, not the only one. I was trying to figure out the point of peering at an event horizon. Like faster-than-light communcations or something...
--
I think that their goals are more focused on the future when we can make digital copies of digital television broadcasts.
Presumably in that digital future we'll also have video on demand, something that will make the record-now, watch-later issue relatively moot.
They'd be pretty foolish to enforce such a thing any sooner.
--
I think it needs to broadcast its address to be addressable.
The chief difference between a cell phone and your home phone is the 'wireless' part. The phone network always knows where to route your home phone calls to because they only need to get to their end of the wire.
For you to receive information from any kind of network, you need to broadcast your location. It's done automatically because many devices, cell phones in particular, might as well be off if their not primed to receive.
It would be nice to be able to turn off the broadcast on things like PDAs, kind of a 'stealth mode'. Or better still, have it constantly listening with a ruleset for broadcasting defined by the user.(e.g. only broadcast on work/home network). Again this would only be useful for things that do more than two way communication.
--
when the "payment" is access to a service, especially one that can't be bought,
/can/ be bought.
Ummm. If a service can be provided, it
That said, minimum wage is all about making enough money with the job you do to put food on the table, roof overhead, etc.
Volunteer work, on the other hand, has no monetary compensation (atleast in the strictest sense) and therefore has no pretext of being a source of income to meet your basic needs.
However, if an organization receives real value from volunteer effort, and pays for that effort with a tangible, transferable asset, then that should be considered an employment contract.
Using your example, a hardware manufacturer produces a new device that needs a driver for your favorite operating system. You write the driver and give it to them, they give you a shiny new device as 'a reward.' The question then comes down to what they do with it. If they deliver the driver freely, they've gained no real value from your effort. If they sell the driver, you should have been paid a minimum wage. If you receive nothing for your effort, then it doesn't matter what they do with it.
It's only a transaction, if each party is getting something real out of it. As far as the government is concerned, transactions where one party puts in labor should be appropriately compensated.
So, what real thing is AOL getting out of these moderators? Nothing tangible, so this shouldn't count. Doesn't matter if it's for profit or not.
Yeah, maybe their chat rooms would be useless without moderators. You know, more than they are with, I mean.;)
--