At the same time, I do believe that market failures can happen.
Free software IS getting viably close to many of the roles that people use windows for---however:
If it wasn't for their monopoly position, we would have never been in the position we are today. Some superior alternative, like IBM' OS/2, would have knocked Windows off the market, and we would live in a completely different world.
Microsoft has established extremely high barriers to entry, as well as piling an immense pile of cash with which to buyout/shutdown competitors.
The only reason that Free software remains alive is that Microsoft is unable to buy it out.
We (it hurts for me to say this) honestly have Richard Stallman to thank for the possibility of an end to the reign of Microsoft.
I suspect that a great deal of MS design flaws are the result of suspicious business practices.
Like intergrating Internet Explorer, everywhere.
Like intergrating MS Office, as much as possible, everywhere.
Like going macro happy in every MS application.
This lawsuit, if there is any strategy behind it, will probably rely upon a set of conditions unique to MS.
1>Illegal MS business practices (remember, they did LOOSE the antitrust case) have resulted in a mass of complex, insecure software. This needs to be corrected. 2>MS misleads consumers by portraying its software as both well-supported and secure, while it knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that its software is extremely insecure (imagine the internal e-mails subpoened abot this, I'm sure they'll be a riot). 3>The MS EULA is invalid; therefore, their warranty disclaimer is inapplicable. Traditional consumer protection laws should apply to any software released under the MS EULA.
Furthermore----The settlement is not the issue at hand. I want to see several things--> 1. Needs to be punished for the result of their monopolistic business practices. One of these results is their insecure software. Fair competition would never have allowed this crap to survive. 2. I want to see MS punished for their extremely dicey EULA. It's not fair to consumers, and its time that someone complained about it. You see, a more reasonable EULA, basically saying "We give you the right to 1 copy of our software, you disclaim us from all damages" would probably not be contestable. The MS EULA, in all of its byzantine legal nonsense, holds you to much more unreasonable terms. 3. It is not a question of holding software companies responsible for every defect. It is about punishing a company which has no regard for software defects, a company which even manipulates its software defects for its own benefit (You need this critical update to protect yourself againt the blaster worm, but at the same time, Windows Update collects all kinds of information about your computer (don't believe that ? Go google it, people have dissected the Windows Update packets).
I suspect that the plaintiff in this case will go to great lengths to isolate Microsoft with regards to responsibility.
Expect to see a lot of claims like "Microsoft software is FAR worse than anyone elses". And "Microsoft refuses to come to gripes with security problems, unlike other companies". And "Microsoft's vulnerabilities are a direct consequence of their monopoly position"
The brilliant part of the last statement will be analyzing specific Microsoft software packages for vulnerabilities on a timeline versus how vibrant their competition was--->Simulatenously demonstration a Microsoft disregard for security, while also demonstrating that the anti-trust settlement against MS did nothing to address the real consequnces of their monopoly.
I suspect that when you PURCHASE software, there are reasons that the developer is more 'legally' accountable for their products then when you use open-source and/or free software.
Generally, there seem to be more protections against poor products when a transaction is involved-->it is much easier to release your product 'as-is' then it is to sell it.
Microsoft may also be a unique case----I suspect that the sheer complexity and audacity that is the MS EULA might be easier to challenge in court then a simple, "You can have my software if you like, it might blow up your computer, but its not my problem, and don't say I didn't warn you".
Additionally, MS claiming that they are developing trustworth products, advertising claims that you can rely on their software, and the overwhelming monopoly position they have on the desktop may place a greater, if not unique, burden upon them.
You don't often see MS claiming that Window's security faults are your problem, do you? Except in the fine print of a legal document which probably wouldn't stand up in court.
The question is, what sort of general consumer protection laws would apply if the EULA is declared invalid?
Especially if you are in a high-level position like Gabe, so that you could dictate the choice of software that your company uses.
Moral questions aside, if you use Microsoft software, you have no way of knowing if you are going to be hacked, you have no way of knowing what new exploits will be discovered, and you have no legal recourse when black hats damage you or your corporation.
Come on, Gabe, you cannot possible use the excuse that "my employer" will not allow us to explore alternatives?
Or is Valve a new 100% Microsoft development house?
SCO is hurting both American competiveness, and national security.
What's the legal standing of the NSA's Secure Linux? Uncertain.
What's the legal standing of the entire American open-source industry? Uncertain.
What's the rest of the world doing? Adoping open-source software as fast as possible.
By spreading baseless Fear, Uncertainity, and Doubt, SCO is honestly doing serious damage to an important American industry.
If SCO pursues plans to attack every American company that has purchased an old AT&T Unix license, it will seriously hurt our IT sector. Especially if their strategy is to delay, delay, delay.
I doubt the rest of the world will put up with this kind of legal nonsense; SCO was kicked out of Germany, and I suspect their case would go nowhere anywhere in the world except the U.S.
This is bad news of the entire industry. Even though SCO's claims are totally baseless. Even though IBM will win in court.
SCO's strategy of spreading doubt breeds uncertainity. SCO's strategy of claiming all sorts of nonsensical things scares companies away from Linux, AIX, and IRIX. This is bad, very bad, for our economy. It pisses me off that the government is NOT investigating SCO. I'm sure there are countless regulations they are violating->if the source code was subpoened, I believe that there would be sufficient proof that SCO is knowingly trying to defraud companies out of money. RICO, whatever--->there must be some statute they are violating.
If American Linux and Unixes (don't forget this DOES include the BSDs, SCO has specifically included them in their nonsensical claims) remain under this cloud of litigation, EVEN THOUGH SCO will loose in the end, Windows adoption rates will increase, while Unix/Linux will remain stalled.
This will happen in households, in corporations, and in government organizations.
SCO is a national security risk. They are driving us into the arms of Microsoft, by scaring middle managers away from both old school unix vendors and new school linux distributors.
It's time for the SEC, or some state attorney general, to start an investigation.
I know that I'm going to start writing letters demanding an investigation.
I'm as loathe as the rest of you to play the 'patriotism' card, but this shit is really pissing me off. And I don't want to see the nation scared away from Unix and Unix-like (read SVR4 'derivative'), because it WILL hurt our international competiveness, and it WILL hurt our national security.
It's kind of difficult to explain why, but it has something to do with the documentation being difficult to use.
There is plenty of Linux documentation, man pages, HowTos, and all kinds of other stuff in newsgroups/forum postings.
But often times, it is very difficult to find a simple, step-by-step instruction list to accomplish a task that I know LOTS of other people have done.
For example-----I do not know how to make my own initrd. I run Suse 8.2, and wanted to test the 2.6.0-test5 kernel. Couldn't get it installed properly. I was running Grub, and the make install script was not configuring Grub correctly. For some reason, the mkinitrd script was not producing the right file either (quite possibly I was not using it correctly).
All sorts of little issues like this, that thousands of you power users out there have been able to do correctly, I have not be able to get around, since the documentation is often indicipherable.
Maybe I'm an idiot, but I spent hours, and hours, looking through man pages and searching on google. I didn't bother posting to a newsgroup, instead, I gave up, and started using Lilo.
2.6 couldn't find my root filesystem. Don't know why (probably mis-configured my initrd). Don't care. 6 hours invested? Better off reverting to 2.4.
I have similar problems---My fonts in mozilla are not anti-aliased properly, and I can't figure out why. I've configured it the same exact way as I did in Mandrake, but the fonts are butt ugly.
All sorts of other minor, nagging issues too. I won't go into them now, but it pisses me off the way forum posts will refer to man pages which refer to man pages which refer to 'common' knowledge, which I'll have to google for, and which won't apply to my distribution.
Perhaps, what needs to happen is more and better contextual help. Maybe an interactive --help switch in most programs? Or just redesigning man pages---This is a project that I would definitely love to participate in, but I just don't have the knowledge---If other people were willing to contribute suggestions, I would love to help organize an 'alternative' comprehensive man page set.
Not that I'm going to switch to Windows anytime soon---I only use Windows 2000 for eve-online, 'cause WineX doesn't support directx 9 yet, and i'm an addict (savage battle for newerth is native linux, though).
I just will have to keep fighting the nagging issues (easier than fighting the giagantic issues that Windows has (more sort of inconsistency and instability problems))
I hate to be a slashdot nerd, but, a good book on options trading my help.
I know that it helped me, I picked up a few last year, and now have a small amount of knowledge about options.
Usually, one does not trade exclusively on options. Options are generally used in conjunction with other securities (stocks) to generate a profit when a stock will stay within a given range.
Based upon the range you believe the stock will stay in, (they are roughly like this---- X is current price. Y is some value of dollars, for all 2 digit decimal. a. X-Y, or lower. b. X+Y, or higher. c. (X+/-Y1)+Y2 or (X+/-Y1)-Y2.) you pursue a certain option strategy. I'm not going to describe the strategies that are out there. Instead, I'll direct you to here.
You could exclusively trade on options, but then you have a great deal less flexibility than just trading on stocks.
Option do not exist for all prices. There are option 'chains', which have different 'striking' prices. This, for example, is a IBM's option chains. There are striking prices between 45 and 115. See the first link for what is a put option, and a call option.
For a simple operation the way you are describing, short selling stock is a much better way to acheive the affect you want.
For the people who say you can loose tons of money in options, you can also loose tons of money on long and short trades.
Its all about knowing when to cut your looses, and when to take profits.
All though it is nigh near impossible, you have unlimited liability on a short sell.
You also have loads of liability on a long buy. Options are generally used to limit your liability on stock trades.
Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about, I'm not a professional broker, just an amateur who reads stock trading books.
I'm not sure what your definition of glamorous is....
BTW: I'm not able to short SCO stock right now, as I understand it, most brokerages aren't allowing that (datek/ameritrade both aren't, perhaps cooler, full service brokerages are).
If I can sell, I dunno, one to four thousand shares of SCO stock short, my account is large enough that I won't get a margin call, unless SCO's stock goes up by another factor of 8----SCO would have to hit $120. I do not anticipate this happening. In fact, I would be extremely, extremely surprised if SCO hits 25, and wouldn't be surprised at all if SCO's ceiling is around 20. But at the same time, 4,000x$15.00= $60,000. If IBM pops SCO next month, or even 6 months from now, that is a very significant gain for me. It is not in the 1000's of percent range, but it is in the low teens, as a percentage of my total account.
The other aspect of this situation. I could short SCO at 15. I would buy it back at 25, if it hit 25. In the long run, I would within 5 points of whatever I perceived its ceiling to be, because I ultimately think the company is DOOMED.
I guess, perhaps, your intrepretation of glamorous might just be 1000's of percent. Sure, if I had purchased 10,000 shares of SCO at $0.48, I would be up some ridiculous percentage now....$140,000, yup----thats a lot of money.
But the difference is, from my perspective, that was not a sure deal. I thought SCO would hover in the dollar range for ever, until it was snuffed out. I still believe that SCO will be snuffed out. I just am sure that their P/E valuation has hit such a ridiculous level (150-200x) that the institutional investors will no longer be duped by the FUD fest. The stock has no where to go but down.
Unfortunately, by brokerage is not accepting shorts on SCOX, otherwise I'd make my $60,000 bet.
In my experience, having been called by telemarketers an average of 5-10 times a day, and having lived in a town with a great deal of telemarketing corporations, with a great deal of friends who worked at these corporations, I can honestly say I would be absolutely SHOCKED if a single telemarketing firm out there was selling a good product at a reasonable price.
These firms exist solely to fleece unsuspecting invidiuals out of their money by being rude and aggressive on the phone.
May they burn in hell forever, and no, I have litte to no sympathy for the people working these jobs.
It puts food on your table? Great, you just took that money from some old lady on social security who would have otherwise used it to pay for prescription medication, and sold her a crummy product that won't work for more than a few days.
Obviously, although SCO is very, very bad with most of the practices a business is supposed to engage in (like verifying facts, generating code, or conducting business), they are great a fleecing investors out of their money.
We don't need to hear about this particular investory (Ren). You just have to look at their stock price for that.
Ultimately, I don't think it matters. SCO has a 80% chance of being stomped by IBM in court, and given appeals, quite probably a 98% chance of being stomped in court. They have already won (for the most part) in the public opinion court of Wall Street, but IBM is shrewd, well-equipped, extremely well funded, and ultimately in the right.
Unforunately, there is a minor flaw in your logic.
Telemarketers often* sell products to individuals who have a very, very poor image of telemarketers, and are firmly resolved not to buy anything.
Maybe not you and me, but 90% of America. You have to understand, they have a very, very, very low positive response rate, but an extremely high call volume. I worked in a survey firm, and our response rate was something abysmal---like 1 in 60. Focus groups were notably better, but my friends who worked across the street at MCI or Access Direct got maybe a 1 in 200 response rate.
Didn't matter. Those autodialers are quick.
You see, part of the 'training' they give you is how to push products on to unsuspected clients. "Tell us how much your phone service costs". Or even worse (this one really pisses me off), "Give us your address and billing information so we can reduce your long distance rates". Or another terrible one: "We need your billing information to update your credit protection service".
Pressure, Pressure, Pressure, and all of a sudden, the poor sap on the other end of the line is tired of saying no, and they just purchase the thing that marketer is trying to sell, just so they don't have to be rude.
I thought it was bad at my research firm. I couldn't believe that crap that went down at MCI, comissions included.
I used to fall prey to this kind of crap before. I remember a set of ten magazine prescriptions, which were supposedly only $10 a month, which actually became $40 a month (because I was being charged in advance), and of which 6 of the magazines never came through.
Evil, blooding sucking, pus-filled bastards.
The only way to deal with these people is to tell them to shut the fuck up, stop calling your number, and find a real job.
I felt bad doing survey research on blood glucose measuring devices, and video game focus groups. The telemarketers out there have made a concious decision to get a higher paying, commission based job, fleecing people out of their money.
You don't have to be nice to them. In fact, they probably say really horrible things about you to their coworkers after they get off the phone with you.
But as long as 1 out of 200 American's do not have the backbone to stand up to them it will make sense for them keep racking up the calls---even out of a database such as the do not call list.
Someone figured out that the two or three releases ago, the Nvidia Detonator's did exactly that, detecting screenshots, and boosting up the quality for that frame.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine if the drivers are still exhibiting that behavior, because Nvidia now supplies drivers where the code is encrypted, and decrypted in a 'just-in-time' fashion.
Alcohol > Marijuana in terms of social cost. Alcohol > Ecstasy in terms of social cost. Alcohol ~> Cocaine in terms of social cost. Alcohol > Pslocybin in terms of social cost. Alcohol > LSD in terms of social cost.
Alcohol may or may not be worse than heroin/meth, but I don't think it is much better, if it is indeed safer.
Add to that some serious utilitiarian mitigation of the benefits of the drug war (drugs are more avaliable than ever, the street price of drugs continues to collapse, America has a larger prison population than any other country in the world (per 1000 individuals)).
Allowing alcohol but banning 'drugs', is iedologically inconsistent.
Legalize 'drugs' (especially drugs other than meth/heroin) does not sacrific peoples' welfare and safety.
More studies need to be conducted in regards to the social consequnces of legalization methamephatmeines, especially in low doses.
More studies need to be conducted regarding the safety of regulated, low dosage heroin versus unregulated, variable dosage heroin.
In both cases, the antecdotal evidence suggests that alcohol, is indeed the LEAST safe drug one can imagine.
In fact, the reason alcohol survived prohibition, but the other 'drugs' did not is the people who used alcohol in the 20's/30's.
Alcohol, by and large, was used by middle class/upper class america.
'Drugs' were used by racial minorities.
Drug war started in a disgusting, racist frenzy of hatred.
It may no longer be quite so racist, but now it runs on inertia (~140,000 DEA employees+countless local/state drug task forces+prison employees and associated construction contractors= actual narco-industrial complex)
Sacrificing peoples' welfare and safety? That is the consequnces of the police state that is the drug war.
Treatment, prevention, taxation, and regulation? That would be in the public interest. Even of Meth/Heroin.
They are cybersquatting (is that what you call it when you register a misspelling?)
It is a little bit of a stretch---Well, not really, all the components are there.
1. It is for profit. Being an overture search page, verisign gets $X for each link clicked on in the search results. Also, verisign offers to register the page for you (not sure if they do it on sitefinder, i've blocked it, but they do on the *.cc tld).
2. It is willful. Its not like they couldn't notice. Jeezus-----own the root DNS servers, and redirect *.com? Why not just actually redirect *.com---->all traffic to verisign, or "All your base are belong to verisign", even for registered domains.
Isn't this stuff covered by the "Truth in Domains Act" ->They just REDIRECTED EVERYTHING----this is x100000000000 what those porn loosers where doing.
If you run a business which offered domain registration, you should be especially pissed.
www.yourfavoriteregistrarmisspelled.com now goes to verisign.
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest----I wouldn't define acquiring open source software as 'purchasing'.
I would qualify it as a 'donation' to which ever group or individual is working on the project you are 'purchasing'.
That you gave them money does not affect your right to use the software. You don't acquire a license, you don't acquire rights to the software.
At best, you acquire some physical media. You might be purchasing the media.
But not the software. Acquiring opensource software does not qualify as purchasing, IMHO
Not that you shouldn't donate to opensource programmers, groups, and companies.
You see---I'm an ardent capitalist.
At the same time, I do believe that market failures can happen.
Free software IS getting viably close to many of the roles that people use windows for---however:
If it wasn't for their monopoly position, we would have never been in the position we are today. Some superior alternative, like IBM' OS/2, would have knocked Windows off the market, and we would live in a completely different world.
Microsoft has established extremely high barriers to entry, as well as piling an immense pile of cash with which to buyout/shutdown competitors.
The only reason that Free software remains alive is that Microsoft is unable to buy it out.
We (it hurts for me to say this) honestly have Richard Stallman to thank for the possibility of an end to the reign of Microsoft.
I disagree. THIS IS A GOOD THING
I suspect that a great deal of MS design flaws are the result of suspicious business practices.
Like intergrating Internet Explorer, everywhere.
Like intergrating MS Office, as much as possible, everywhere.
Like going macro happy in every MS application.
This lawsuit, if there is any strategy behind it, will probably rely upon a set of conditions unique to MS.
1>Illegal MS business practices (remember, they did LOOSE the antitrust case) have resulted in a mass of complex, insecure software. This needs to be corrected.
2>MS misleads consumers by portraying its software as both well-supported and secure, while it knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that its software is extremely insecure (imagine the internal e-mails subpoened abot this, I'm sure they'll be a riot).
3>The MS EULA is invalid; therefore, their warranty disclaimer is inapplicable. Traditional consumer protection laws should apply to any software released under the MS EULA.
Furthermore----The settlement is not the issue at hand. I want to see several things-->
1. Needs to be punished for the result of their monopolistic business practices. One of these results is their insecure software. Fair competition would never have allowed this crap to survive.
2. I want to see MS punished for their extremely dicey EULA. It's not fair to consumers, and its time that someone complained about it. You see, a more reasonable EULA, basically saying "We give you the right to 1 copy of our software, you disclaim us from all damages" would probably not be contestable. The MS EULA, in all of its byzantine legal nonsense, holds you to much more unreasonable terms.
3. It is not a question of holding software companies responsible for every defect. It is about punishing a company which has no regard for software defects, a company which even manipulates its software defects for its own benefit (You need this critical update to protect yourself againt the blaster worm, but at the same time, Windows Update collects all kinds of information about your computer (don't believe that ? Go google it, people have dissected the Windows Update packets).
I suspect that the plaintiff in this case will go to great lengths to isolate Microsoft with regards to responsibility.
Expect to see a lot of claims like "Microsoft software is FAR worse than anyone elses". And "Microsoft refuses to come to gripes with security problems, unlike other companies". And "Microsoft's vulnerabilities are a direct consequence of their monopoly position"
The brilliant part of the last statement will be analyzing specific Microsoft software packages for vulnerabilities on a timeline versus how vibrant their competition was--->Simulatenously demonstration a Microsoft disregard for security, while also demonstrating that the anti-trust settlement against MS did nothing to address the real consequnces of their monopoly.
I suspect that when you PURCHASE software, there are reasons that the developer is more 'legally' accountable for their products then when you use open-source and/or free software.
Generally, there seem to be more protections against poor products when a transaction is involved-->it is much easier to release your product 'as-is' then it is to sell it.
Microsoft may also be a unique case----I suspect that the sheer complexity and audacity that is the MS EULA might be easier to challenge in court then a simple, "You can have my software if you like, it might blow up your computer, but its not my problem, and don't say I didn't warn you".
Additionally, MS claiming that they are developing trustworth products, advertising claims that you can rely on their software, and the overwhelming monopoly position they have on the desktop may place a greater, if not unique, burden upon them.
You don't often see MS claiming that Window's security faults are your problem, do you? Except in the fine print of a legal document which probably wouldn't stand up in court.
The question is, what sort of general consumer protection laws would apply if the EULA is declared invalid?
Its your own damn fault if you use Outlook.
Especially if you are in a high-level position like Gabe, so that you could dictate the choice of software that your company uses.
Moral questions aside, if you use Microsoft software, you have no way of knowing if you are going to be hacked, you have no way of knowing what new exploits will be discovered, and you have no legal recourse when black hats damage you or your corporation.
Come on, Gabe, you cannot possible use the excuse that "my employer" will not allow us to explore alternatives?
Or is Valve a new 100% Microsoft development house?
I'm serious.
SCO is hurting both American competiveness, and national security.
What's the legal standing of the NSA's Secure Linux?
Uncertain.
What's the legal standing of the entire American open-source industry?
Uncertain.
What's the rest of the world doing?
Adoping open-source software as fast as possible.
By spreading baseless Fear, Uncertainity, and Doubt, SCO is honestly doing serious damage to an important American industry.
If SCO pursues plans to attack every American company that has purchased an old AT&T Unix license, it will seriously hurt our IT sector. Especially if their strategy is to delay, delay, delay.
I doubt the rest of the world will put up with this kind of legal nonsense; SCO was kicked out of Germany, and I suspect their case would go nowhere anywhere in the world except the U.S.
This is bad news of the entire industry. Even though SCO's claims are totally baseless. Even though IBM will win in court.
SCO's strategy of spreading doubt breeds uncertainity. SCO's strategy of claiming all sorts of nonsensical things scares companies away from Linux, AIX, and IRIX. This is bad, very bad, for our economy. It pisses me off that the government is NOT investigating SCO. I'm sure there are countless regulations they are violating->if the source code was subpoened, I believe that there would be sufficient proof that SCO is knowingly trying to defraud companies out of money. RICO, whatever--->there must be some statute they are violating.
If American Linux and Unixes (don't forget this DOES include the BSDs, SCO has specifically included them in their nonsensical claims) remain under this cloud of litigation, EVEN THOUGH SCO will loose in the end, Windows adoption rates will increase, while Unix/Linux will remain stalled.
This will happen in households, in corporations, and in government organizations.
SCO is a national security risk. They are driving us into the arms of Microsoft, by scaring middle managers away from both old school unix vendors and new school linux distributors.
It's time for the SEC, or some state attorney general, to start an investigation.
I know that I'm going to start writing letters demanding an investigation.
I'm as loathe as the rest of you to play the 'patriotism' card, but this shit is really pissing me off. And I don't want to see the nation scared away from Unix and Unix-like (read SVR4 'derivative'), because it WILL hurt our international competiveness, and it WILL hurt our national security.
I'm waiting for entirely digital vector-based rendered films.
Make those indistinguishable from 'real-life'.
Create simple, handle-held devices that can output geometry and texture data.
Now that would be really cool
Switching to Linux is Hard(TM)....
It's kind of difficult to explain why, but it has something to do with the documentation being difficult to use.
There is plenty of Linux documentation, man pages, HowTos, and all kinds of other stuff in newsgroups/forum postings.
But often times, it is very difficult to find a simple, step-by-step instruction list to accomplish a task that I know LOTS of other people have done.
For example-----I do not know how to make my own initrd. I run Suse 8.2, and wanted to test the 2.6.0-test5 kernel. Couldn't get it installed properly. I was running Grub, and the make install script was not configuring Grub correctly. For some reason, the mkinitrd script was not producing the right file either (quite possibly I was not using it correctly).
All sorts of little issues like this, that thousands of you power users out there have been able to do correctly, I have not be able to get around, since the documentation is often indicipherable.
Maybe I'm an idiot, but I spent hours, and hours, looking through man pages and searching on google. I didn't bother posting to a newsgroup, instead, I gave up, and started using Lilo.
2.6 couldn't find my root filesystem. Don't know why (probably mis-configured my initrd). Don't care. 6 hours invested? Better off reverting to 2.4.
I have similar problems---My fonts in mozilla are not anti-aliased properly, and I can't figure out why. I've configured it the same exact way as I did in Mandrake, but the fonts are butt ugly.
All sorts of other minor, nagging issues too. I won't go into them now, but it pisses me off the way forum posts will refer to man pages which refer to man pages which refer to 'common' knowledge, which I'll have to google for, and which won't apply to my distribution.
Perhaps, what needs to happen is more and better contextual help. Maybe an interactive --help switch in most programs? Or just redesigning man pages---This is a project that I would definitely love to participate in, but I just don't have the knowledge---If other people were willing to contribute suggestions, I would love to help organize an 'alternative' comprehensive man page set.
Not that I'm going to switch to Windows anytime soon---I only use Windows 2000 for eve-online, 'cause WineX doesn't support directx 9 yet, and i'm an addict (savage battle for newerth is native linux, though).
I just will have to keep fighting the nagging issues (easier than fighting the giagantic issues that Windows has (more sort of inconsistency and instability problems))
Cheers,
WhiteWolf
Options don't really work like that.
I hate to be a slashdot nerd, but, a good book on options trading my help.
I know that it helped me, I picked up a few last year, and now have a small amount of knowledge about options.
Usually, one does not trade exclusively on options. Options are generally used in conjunction with other securities (stocks) to generate a profit when a stock will stay within a given range.
Based upon the range you believe the stock will stay in, (they are roughly like this---- X is current price. Y is some value of dollars, for all 2 digit decimal. a. X-Y, or lower. b. X+Y, or higher. c. (X+/-Y1)+Y2 or (X+/-Y1)-Y2.) you pursue a certain option strategy. I'm not going to describe the strategies that are out there. Instead, I'll direct you to here.
You could exclusively trade on options, but then you have a great deal less flexibility than just trading on stocks.
Option do not exist for all prices. There are option 'chains', which have different 'striking' prices. This, for example, is a IBM's option chains. There are striking prices between 45 and 115. See the first link for what is a put option, and a call option.
For a simple operation the way you are describing, short selling stock is a much better way to acheive the affect you want.
For the people who say you can loose tons of money in options, you can also loose tons of money on long and short trades.
Its all about knowing when to cut your looses, and when to take profits.
All though it is nigh near impossible, you have unlimited liability on a short sell.
You also have loads of liability on a long buy. Options are generally used to limit your liability on stock trades.
Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about, I'm not a professional broker, just an amateur who reads stock trading books.
Umm----
I'm not sure what your definition of glamorous is....
BTW: I'm not able to short SCO stock right now, as I understand it, most brokerages aren't allowing that (datek/ameritrade both aren't, perhaps cooler, full service brokerages are).
If I can sell, I dunno, one to four thousand shares of SCO stock short, my account is large enough that I won't get a margin call, unless SCO's stock goes up by another factor of 8----SCO would have to hit $120. I do not anticipate this happening. In fact, I would be extremely, extremely surprised if SCO hits 25, and wouldn't be surprised at all if SCO's ceiling is around 20.
But at the same time, 4,000x$15.00= $60,000. If IBM pops SCO next month, or even 6 months from now, that is a very significant gain for me. It is not in the 1000's of percent range, but it is in the low teens, as a percentage of my total account.
The other aspect of this situation. I could short SCO at 15. I would buy it back at 25, if it hit 25. In the long run, I would within 5 points of whatever I perceived its ceiling to be, because I ultimately think the company is DOOMED.
I guess, perhaps, your intrepretation of glamorous might just be 1000's of percent. Sure, if I had purchased 10,000 shares of SCO at $0.48, I would be up some ridiculous percentage now....$140,000, yup----thats a lot of money.
But the difference is, from my perspective, that was not a sure deal. I thought SCO would hover in the dollar range for ever, until it was snuffed out. I still believe that SCO will be snuffed out. I just am sure that their P/E valuation has hit such a ridiculous level (150-200x) that the institutional investors will no longer be duped by the FUD fest. The stock has no where to go but down.
Unfortunately, by brokerage is not accepting shorts on SCOX, otherwise I'd make my $60,000 bet.
Telemarketers can go to hell.
In my experience, having been called by telemarketers an average of 5-10 times a day, and having lived in a town with a great deal of telemarketing corporations, with a great deal of friends who worked at these corporations, I can honestly say I would be absolutely SHOCKED if a single telemarketing firm out there was selling a good product at a reasonable price.
These firms exist solely to fleece unsuspecting invidiuals out of their money by being rude and aggressive on the phone.
May they burn in hell forever, and no, I have litte to no sympathy for the people working these jobs.
It puts food on your table? Great, you just took that money from some old lady on social security who would have otherwise used it to pay for prescription medication, and sold her a crummy product that won't work for more than a few days.
Obviously, although SCO is very, very bad with most of the practices a business is supposed to engage in (like verifying facts, generating code, or conducting business), they are great a fleecing investors out of their money.
We don't need to hear about this particular investory (Ren). You just have to look at their stock price for that.
Ultimately, I don't think it matters. SCO has a 80% chance of being stomped by IBM in court, and given appeals, quite probably a 98% chance of being stomped in court. They have already won (for the most part) in the public opinion court of Wall Street, but IBM is shrewd, well-equipped, extremely well funded, and ultimately in the right.
Its not difficult to prove that we are already taxed on everything.
If you buy your own VoIP equipment, your probably taxed.
Your probably taxed on your bandwidth costs.
Your probably taxed on the electricity you supply your equipment with.
The trick is, not to determine when you are being taxed, instead, count how many times you are being taxed on any given transaction.
Don't forget to include your personal income tax, and payroll taxes.
Gee....
That must be why all those female pop stars are so thin.
Maybe we should setup a food drive or something? Feed hungry pop stars and record executives?
Unforunately, there is a minor flaw in your logic.
Telemarketers often* sell products to individuals who have a very, very poor image of telemarketers, and are firmly resolved not to buy anything.
Maybe not you and me, but 90% of America. You have to understand, they have a very, very, very low positive response rate, but an extremely high call volume. I worked in a survey firm, and our response rate was something abysmal---like 1 in 60. Focus groups were notably better, but my friends who worked across the street at MCI or Access Direct got maybe a 1 in 200 response rate.
Didn't matter. Those autodialers are quick.
You see, part of the 'training' they give you is how to push products on to unsuspected clients. "Tell us how much your phone service costs". Or even worse (this one really pisses me off), "Give us your address and billing information so we can reduce your long distance rates". Or another terrible one: "We need your billing information to update your credit protection service".
Pressure, Pressure, Pressure, and all of a sudden, the poor sap on the other end of the line is tired of saying no, and they just purchase the thing that marketer is trying to sell, just so they don't have to be rude.
I thought it was bad at my research firm. I couldn't believe that crap that went down at MCI, comissions included.
I used to fall prey to this kind of crap before. I remember a set of ten magazine prescriptions, which were supposedly only $10 a month, which actually became $40 a month (because I was being charged in advance), and of which 6 of the magazines never came through.
Evil, blooding sucking, pus-filled bastards.
The only way to deal with these people is to tell them to shut the fuck up, stop calling your number, and find a real job.
I felt bad doing survey research on blood glucose measuring devices, and video game focus groups. The telemarketers out there have made a concious decision to get a higher paying, commission based job, fleecing people out of their money.
You don't have to be nice to them. In fact, they probably say really horrible things about you to their coworkers after they get off the phone with you.
But as long as 1 out of 200 American's do not have the backbone to stand up to them it will make sense for them keep racking up the calls---even out of a database such as the do not call list.
Umm......This is actually the case.
Except. Replace child molesters with drug dealers.
Half of the justifications of the drug war now have to do with the immense industry set up to persue it
In fact, this HAS already happened.
Someone figured out that the two or three releases ago, the Nvidia Detonator's did exactly that, detecting screenshots, and boosting up the quality for that frame.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine if the drivers are still exhibiting that behavior, because Nvidia now supplies drivers where the code is encrypted, and decrypted in a 'just-in-time' fashion.
Sketchy. Very very sketchy. ATI for me.
I know, I know---Its just my mean streak coming out :-)
um---boohoo....
Alcohol > Marijuana in terms of social cost.
Alcohol > Ecstasy in terms of social cost.
Alcohol ~> Cocaine in terms of social cost.
Alcohol > Pslocybin in terms of social cost.
Alcohol > LSD in terms of social cost.
Alcohol may or may not be worse than heroin/meth, but I don't think it is much better, if it is indeed safer.
Add to that some serious utilitiarian mitigation of the benefits of the drug war (drugs are more avaliable than ever, the street price of drugs continues to collapse, America has a larger prison population than any other country in the world (per 1000 individuals)).
Allowing alcohol but banning 'drugs', is iedologically inconsistent.
Legalize 'drugs' (especially drugs other than meth/heroin) does not sacrific peoples' welfare and safety.
More studies need to be conducted in regards to the social consequnces of legalization methamephatmeines, especially in low doses.
More studies need to be conducted regarding the safety of regulated, low dosage heroin versus unregulated, variable dosage heroin.
In both cases, the antecdotal evidence suggests that alcohol, is indeed the LEAST safe drug one can imagine.
In fact, the reason alcohol survived prohibition, but the other 'drugs' did not is the people who used alcohol in the 20's/30's.
Alcohol, by and large, was used by middle class/upper class america.
'Drugs' were used by racial minorities.
Drug war started in a disgusting, racist frenzy of hatred.
It may no longer be quite so racist, but now it runs on inertia (~140,000 DEA employees+countless local/state drug task forces+prison employees and associated construction contractors= actual narco-industrial complex)
Sacrificing peoples' welfare and safety? That is the consequnces of the police state that is the drug war.
Treatment, prevention, taxation, and regulation? That would be in the public interest. Even of Meth/Heroin.
I'm thinking bigger/longer term than that :)
.COM domain.
Everyone switch to OpenNIC.
Then it becomes feasible for OpenNIC to have its own
Ok---here is an idea---any way to use this vulernability to make a url that repeatedly requests sitefinder.verisign.com?
They are cybersquatting (is that what you call it when you register a misspelling?)
It is a little bit of a stretch---Well, not really, all the components are there.
1. It is for profit. Being an overture search page, verisign gets $X for each link clicked on in the search results. Also, verisign offers to register the page for you (not sure if they do it on sitefinder, i've blocked it, but they do on the *.cc tld).
2. It is willful. Its not like they couldn't notice. Jeezus-----own the root DNS servers, and redirect *.com? Why not just actually redirect *.com---->all traffic to verisign, or "All your base are belong to verisign", even for registered domains.
Isn't this stuff covered by the "Truth in Domains Act" ->They just REDIRECTED EVERYTHING----this is x100000000000 what those porn loosers where doing.
If you run a business which offered domain registration, you should be especially pissed.
www.yourfavoriteregistrarmisspelled.com now goes to verisign.
Sue Them!
Nothing.
OpenNIC does exactly that.
OpenNIC
Verisign has continued to be the #1 DNS provider (monopoly root control over the internet, supposedly) through intertia.
Not that I don't hate the bastards, given their effective monopoly.
My only point is that very little has to change to eliminate them.
Do they actually have a DNS monopoly? Just switch your root server away. Infact, everyone should use OpenNIC. All ISP's should switch to OpenNIC.
Then Verisign can rot.
I hate them. Dirty, money grubbing bastards that they are.
Uncrucking believable...
Looks like they have already changed it:
or is something amuck on my system---
sitefinder.verisign.com 12.158.80.10
Bastards.
Internet Death Penalty, NOW.
I'm blocking *.verisign.com, and associated ip addies.