Lowes packed up their order and had it delivered to their house! There should be like 3 computer functions that mitigate that risk and oh, a dozen PHYSICAL ACTS that should have stopped it.
Lowes is just full of fail on this one.
Agreed. But Lowes did not commit a crime. The NJ couple allegedly did. They found a flaw in their online commerce system and exploited it repeatedly.
In large corporations, one hand often does not know what the other is doing. Once a shipment is authorized, shipping ships it. Eventually somebody might notice that the same address keeps receiving items for $0.00, and notify someone.
Yes, Lowes screwed up. But nobody expects a company like Lowes to give away stuff for free. They might be expected to write off a few errors due to bugs in their software. But IMHO, they do have a legal case against someone who exploits such a bug repeatedly.
Until someone forks an incompatible version and hides the changes. Then you can't see the source of the software running on your system. No more freedom for you.
You can't have true freedom without giving up a little of it. The GPL is a reasonable compromise.
I remember reading in a comment here that Eclipse was named after the intent to blot out the Sun (Microsystems). Looks like they'll have that opportunity.
I think the market eclipsed Sun before Eclipse did. But I agree with your point.
And in light of this, I propose that we declare Monday, August 21, 2017 to be Open-Source Java Day. Because Eclipse.
Put it in the public domain. Can't get much more open than that.
Until someone forks an incompatible version, and hides the changes. The GPL is designed to keep that from happening.
Be careful when you wish for something to be put in the public domain. Even though the forked binary blobs will eventually be public domain, there is no guarantee that the source ever will be.
The CNBC article says both that Bannon resigned and that Trump fired him.
Both, people at that level are very rarely fired, typically they are asked to submit a resignation. The idea is to preserve optics by making the departure seem as amicable as possible.
In Trump's case, they get fired even after submitting their resignation.
Given the events of the last few weeks, I think that about sums up the entire White House staff. They're all in a fired-and-not-fired state, as Trump unpredictably emits twitterons that could determine their fate.
Obviously Amazon would hold onto its bonds if the yield Amazon has to pay out is low compared to the market (i.e., if rates rise.) But if rates drop, then Amazon may want to exercise the option (if they have it) to call the bonds back, and re-issue new ones that have a lower yield, i.e., a lower payout cost for Amazon. Just like someone refinancing a mortgage.
I don't know the details of the offering, but I doubt that all of the bonds Amazon wants to offer have 40-year terms. Whatever side you're on in a bond transaction, a mixture of terms can make sense.
I'm not sure I understand your question. Amazon wants to borrow at a low rate. And if rates are going up, then locking them in is a good thing. If rates go even lower, then they can call the bonds back and re-issue new ones at lower rates. Granted, the bonds may rise in value if rates drop, but if the math works out for them, they can do it.
Anyway, Amazon has about 21.5 billion USD in the bank -- or rather, banks, as not all of it is held domestically. So, this deal would consume most of its cash on hand if they didn't look for financing. It is not a good thing for a company to be low on cash in the bank, because their cash flow can be wrecked if they can't buffer unexpected expenses.
A 40-year bond from a private company which might not last even half that long with a yield that is 1.45% larger than historically low rate government bonds. Riiiight....
The duration of a bond may not reflect its actual lifetime. If the bond is callable, then the issuer has the right to buy it back under conditions specified in the bond issue.
Many people have 30-year mortgages on their house, but refinance into other mortgages well before 30 years go by.
16 billion is one big whack of cash. I doubt that a single bank would be willing or able to take on that kind of risk out of their own capital.
So, Amazon goes to the bond market, which is much larger than any bank, or even the entire US stock market (in fact it is twice the size of the stock market in capitalization.)
As for not issuing Amazon stock to the current Whole Foods stock-holders, perhaps they fear a dilution, or don't want to influence governance as a result of all those new voting shares. There is an interesting viewpoint on the Motley Fool website. TL/DR: If Amazon is confident about the success of the deal, it makes more sense to use cash. If it is not, then it makes sense to use stock, so that they share the risk with the erstwhile Whole Foods shareholders. Also, Amazon may think that Whole Foods is undervalued, so it makes more sense to use cash.
I don't think so, no matter how well tempered your clavier is.
The older (German?) convention for labelling notes used B for what we now call B-flat, and H for what we now call B. So, B-flat, A, C, B spells B-A-C-H in that convention.
Many other composers have used this note-sequence as a tribute to Bach, even though the old labelling convention has long been abandoned. (See for example, Charles Ives' three-page sonata for piano.)
BTW, the GPL is not "free as in freedom" - unlike the BSD licenses, it imposes restrictions on distribution.
On balance, those restrictions are quite reasonable. Their purpose is to ensure that you cannot take the freedom you have with the software away from someone else, by forking and hiding your changes.
People who write GPL code make their own choice to license it that way. If you don't like GPL code, don't use it. Obviously you have that freedom.
1: Forcing their beliefs on others is inherent to Islam. Only a complete idiot could think their very presence is not a threat to Western civilization.
2: The real question is, does the presence of trans people hinder the cohesion and combat efficiency of the troops in any way? If so, they don't belong there.
Slashdot Mirror
"Below is a list of the most expensive items found at the couple's home:
Approximately $2,500 Victoria Secret Underwear"
Lowes sells Victoria Secret underwear?
Imagine it was Home Depot instead. "You can do it. We can help."
Lowes packed up their order and had it delivered to their house! There should be like 3 computer functions that mitigate that risk and oh, a dozen PHYSICAL ACTS that should have stopped it.
Lowes is just full of fail on this one.
Agreed. But Lowes did not commit a crime. The NJ couple allegedly did. They found a flaw in their online commerce system and exploited it repeatedly.
In large corporations, one hand often does not know what the other is doing. Once a shipment is authorized, shipping ships it. Eventually somebody might notice that the same address keeps receiving items for $0.00, and notify someone.
Yes, Lowes screwed up. But nobody expects a company like Lowes to give away stuff for free. They might be expected to write off a few errors due to bugs in their software. But IMHO, they do have a legal case against someone who exploits such a bug repeatedly.
Even if it is clear that the system was at fault and that no exploit was used, that person would not get to keep the goods over here.
But would they be charged with a crime?
If they exploited the flaw over and over and over again, then I would think yes. Just like the couple allegedly did in TFS.
Come on everybody. This is Slashdot. We need a car analogy.
Will they stop suing Google for using the API?
Maybe Oracle should have sold Java EE to SCO.
[*ducks*]
[agree with all your other points; one quibble...]
The BSD license encourages leeching.
I'm with you, but you misspelled theft.
Fuck you, in your stupid fucking face, you greedy bastards. I hope you choke on the bile that you are trying vomit upon us. ;)
I hear you, dude. There are many here who would like Larry Ellison to go fuck himself.
Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if he married himself.
BSD - truly free as in freedom.
Until someone forks an incompatible version and hides the changes. Then you can't see the source of the software running on your system. No more freedom for you.
You can't have true freedom without giving up a little of it. The GPL is a reasonable compromise.
I remember reading in a comment here that Eclipse was named after the intent to blot out the Sun (Microsystems). Looks like they'll have that opportunity.
I think the market eclipsed Sun before Eclipse did. But I agree with your point.
And in light of this, I propose that we declare Monday, August 21, 2017 to be Open-Source Java Day. Because Eclipse.
Put it in the public domain. Can't get much more open than that.
Until someone forks an incompatible version, and hides the changes. The GPL is designed to keep that from happening.
Be careful when you wish for something to be put in the public domain. Even though the forked binary blobs will eventually be public domain, there is no guarantee that the source ever will be.
The CNBC article says both that Bannon resigned and that Trump fired him.
Both, people at that level are very rarely fired, typically they are asked to submit a resignation. The idea is to preserve optics by making the departure seem as amicable as possible.
In Trump's case, they get fired even after submitting their resignation.
That's Trump's sense of rough justice.
Given the events of the last few weeks, I think that about sums up the entire White House staff. They're all in a fired-and-not-fired state, as Trump unpredictably emits twitterons that could determine their fate.
But what about the health benefits of me driving a '69 Charger Hemi R/T? It's great for my stress level and has cured my erectile dysfunction.
Wow. PopeRatzo, this is so unlike you. (Spoken as a friend.)
All I can say is, finding a 21st-century ride might let you escape from winning the Darwin Award. ;-P
Lefties and proggies don't believe in free speech or liberalism.
Okay, put down the broad brush, and rethink your view of the world.
People, no matter what part of the political spectrum they identify with, are not so easy to pigeon-hole as you want to imagine.
And BTW, there are plenty of lefties and righties who believe in free speech and liberalism (in the sense of liberty.)
You're healing it wrong.
Okay, I think we understand each other now.
Obviously Amazon would hold onto its bonds if the yield Amazon has to pay out is low compared to the market (i.e., if rates rise.) But if rates drop, then Amazon may want to exercise the option (if they have it) to call the bonds back, and re-issue new ones that have a lower yield, i.e., a lower payout cost for Amazon. Just like someone refinancing a mortgage.
I don't know the details of the offering, but I doubt that all of the bonds Amazon wants to offer have 40-year terms. Whatever side you're on in a bond transaction, a mixture of terms can make sense.
I'm not sure I understand your question. Amazon wants to borrow at a low rate. And if rates are going up, then locking them in is a good thing. If rates go even lower, then they can call the bonds back and re-issue new ones at lower rates. Granted, the bonds may rise in value if rates drop, but if the math works out for them, they can do it.
TFA is about Amazon, not Google.
Anyway, Amazon has about 21.5 billion USD in the bank -- or rather, banks, as not all of it is held domestically. So, this deal would consume most of its cash on hand if they didn't look for financing. It is not a good thing for a company to be low on cash in the bank, because their cash flow can be wrecked if they can't buffer unexpected expenses.
A 40-year bond from a private company which might not last even half that long with a yield that is 1.45% larger than historically low rate government bonds. Riiiight....
The duration of a bond may not reflect its actual lifetime. If the bond is callable, then the issuer has the right to buy it back under conditions specified in the bond issue.
Many people have 30-year mortgages on their house, but refinance into other mortgages well before 30 years go by.
16 billion is one big whack of cash. I doubt that a single bank would be willing or able to take on that kind of risk out of their own capital.
So, Amazon goes to the bond market, which is much larger than any bank, or even the entire US stock market (in fact it is twice the size of the stock market in capitalization.)
As for not issuing Amazon stock to the current Whole Foods stock-holders, perhaps they fear a dilution, or don't want to influence governance as a result of all those new voting shares. There is an interesting viewpoint on the Motley Fool website. TL/DR: If Amazon is confident about the success of the deal, it makes more sense to use cash. If it is not, then it makes sense to use stock, so that they share the risk with the erstwhile Whole Foods shareholders. Also, Amazon may think that Whole Foods is undervalued, so it makes more sense to use cash.
Much in the same way the Taliban destroyed statues if the Buddha, destruction of history should always be opposed, or should we tear down mt Rushmore?
No, not like that at all. They don't want to destroy the statue of Robert E. Lee, they just want to put it somewhere else, e.g., in a museum.
B, A, C - OK, but H???
I don't think so, no matter how well tempered your clavier is.
The older (German?) convention for labelling notes used B for what we now call B-flat, and H for what we now call B. So, B-flat, A, C, B spells B-A-C-H in that convention.
Many other composers have used this note-sequence as a tribute to Bach, even though the old labelling convention has long been abandoned. (See for example, Charles Ives' three-page sonata for piano.)
Libre is a stupid, pretentious word.
It sounds that way, because it is not used commonly in English. (Not so for other languages like French, etc.)
But please, let's allow that it is useful, when you want to avoid the confusion that can arise from the double-meaning of "free" in English.
BTW, the GPL is not "free as in freedom" - unlike the BSD licenses, it imposes restrictions on distribution.
On balance, those restrictions are quite reasonable. Their purpose is to ensure that you cannot take the freedom you have with the software away from someone else, by forking and hiding your changes.
People who write GPL code make their own choice to license it that way. If you don't like GPL code, don't use it. Obviously you have that freedom.
1: Forcing their beliefs on others is inherent to Islam. Only a complete idiot could think their very presence is not a threat to Western civilization.
Waitaminite. I think it's important to listen to how Muslims themselves feel about that.
2: The real question is, does the presence of trans people hinder the cohesion and combat efficiency of the troops in any way? If so, they don't belong there.
And the answer to that question ... is no.