Market value and debt don't really tell enough. Earnings and cashflow are bigger tools to gauge the success of the companies. If Blockbuster is making enough money to service the debt (and other obligations), then they're doing fine. If Netflix has enough cash reserves that they don't need debt to keep operating, then they're doing fine. Debt is just a tool that businesses use.
I don't care if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.
Ahh, but you should care - Spitzer has also left a nasty trail of ruined careers and financial losses in some of his misguided crusades. The ends don't justify the means - if they did, then nobody on/. would have any problems with the PATRIOT Act.
Might want to ask yourself who Spitzer works for, new yorkers or the record companies.
Spitzer works for himself. When he started his crusading, it seemed like he was a beacon of light for the consumer, but it's pretty clear that his political ambitions are the driving force behind his actions now.
Yes, I've noticed that all of the Bigmouth Bill Bass', Buck the Singing Deer Heads and barking flashlights that my company had purchased to improve productivity just haven't done the job.
Apples and oranges...every decade has its technological wasteland.
Public companies need stockholder approval before they can issue new common stock. It doesn't happen often for obvious reasons. While buying stock and holding it may drive up the stock price, a significant amount of the stock has to go off the market - way, way more than JT can buy. In most cases, the company's performance determines the stock price much more than holding stock does.
Buying common stock does get you invited to the stockholders' meeting. It doesn't mean that you'll get to ask your question, but you do get to go to the meeting.
So what? You're suggesting that Symantec is being blocked by US export restrictions because they haven't bothered to renew their export license?
Seems the other way round from how 99% of the other comments read, including the summary at top. To read those, you'd think that it's the export laws themselves that had changed. Or that Symantec are hiding something (cue the conspiracy theorists).
I'm not suggesting that Symantec is being blocked. I'm suggesting that if they want to sell their product outside of North America all that they need to do is obtain an export permit.
I guess that I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, what I posted is 180 degrees out from 99% of the other posts and the summary, but that's no surprise.
Sure, because there's no possible way that any of those evil hackers and terrorists could get a copy without buying it from Symantec.... [snicker]
Well, no kidding, Captain Obvious, but that wasn't the point of my post. Let me try again. The Reg claims that Symantec can't sell the software outside of the US and Canada because the government imposed a regulation on them. Not true. Symantec claims that a certain section of the EAC prohibits them from selling overseas. Not only not true, but they cited the wrong section.
Symantec appears to be incorrectly using the EAC as an excuse for lazy business practices.
For example, if you receive $50 in sales for each of 295 people a day, 340 days a year, that's $5,000,000. How many online retailers do you think can manage to do that?
Not all that many - that's over $13,500 per day in sales. That is a big number! For retail trade, $6,000,000 in revenue is the upper end for the Fed's definition of most small businesses.
I've been involved with several successful small businesses in retail and service and none approached that limit.
Although the Reg article claims that Symantec appears to have had the restriction imposed by the government, both Symantec and the Register seem to have things a little bit wrong.
For starters, section 5A002 of the ECCN covers hardware. Perhaps Symantec meant section 5D002, software. 5D002.c.1 covers their situation. But the list of restricted countries hasn't changed for quite a while - it's the usual gang: Syria, North Korea, Sudan, etc. It seems to me that Symantec is being a little lazy here. Yes, they have to have an export license to sell the software outside of the US, but the restrictions aren't any more onerous than they were in 1999, when the EAR was updated to move cryptographic software from munitions to commerce.
Obviously there's a connection between Gates' net worth and Microsoft. But, so far as I know, Microsoft doesn't make computers. Yeah, the computers run Windows, for the most part, because that's what most computers run. For what it's worth, the computers and software that my local libraries use came from the Micron Foundation. Oh crap, they probably have Micron memory in them - those evil bastards!
The Gates Foundation also gave nearly $6 billion to health initiatives. Does Microsoft make vaccines, too?
Ease up a little. Bill Gates is not the antichrist.
How much would Hitler need to have given to charity to bring honor to his name?
Blammo, Godwined right off the bat.
How many Billions does MSFT have laying around in CASH right now??? Not revenue, not capital, but pure CASH... The number is truly staggering.
No, it's not truely staggering for a company with over $39 billion in annual revenue. They've got $37 billion in cash and short term investments on hand (down from $60 billion last year). It's no secret - the company files a form 10K every year. There are lots of interesting details in it - including why they have a lot less money on hand now than they did last year.
The link doesn't actually say how much of that came from Bill himself. Nor how much of a tax break he got for whatever he did contribute.
Gates fund the foundation himself. Or, I should say, Bill and Melinda fund the foundation themselves.
Tax break? You're kidding me, right? Even if he's in the 35% tax bracket, he's still giving away far more money than he gets from a tax deduction. Besides, you can't get back more than you owe in taxes - I don't think that even Bill Gates can ring up a $28 billion tax bill.
Incidentally, one of the positions that Gates has taken on our "progressive" income tax is that the rich should pay more than the poor in taxes. So has his father (who's a long way from the poorhouse himself).
You know, you can find all this out through Google...
Slashdot Mirror
Blammo, Godwinned right off the bat!
Ahem. I predict that most predictions will be wrong. Thank you.
And which ones would those be?
If you really want to know...poke around Google yourself.
Market value and debt don't really tell enough. Earnings and cashflow are bigger tools to gauge the success of the companies. If Blockbuster is making enough money to service the debt (and other obligations), then they're doing fine. If Netflix has enough cash reserves that they don't need debt to keep operating, then they're doing fine. Debt is just a tool that businesses use.
-h-
But wouldn't Symantec have to apply for a separate export license for each end user?
Nope. The license is for the product.
Misunderstanding, indeed!
Not unless Coca-Cola was around in the early 19th century. Google is your friend.
I don't care if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.
/. would have any problems with the PATRIOT Act.
Ahh, but you should care - Spitzer has also left a nasty trail of ruined careers and financial losses in some of his misguided crusades. The ends don't justify the means - if they did, then nobody on
-h-
Might want to ask yourself who Spitzer works for, new yorkers or the record companies.
Spitzer works for himself. When he started his crusading, it seemed like he was a beacon of light for the consumer, but it's pretty clear that his political ambitions are the driving force behind his actions now.
-h-
Odd, and here I thought the story had to do with Americans as consumers. Oh yes, it does!
In which case, your reply to the post that started this decent into tangency makes no sense at all.
-h-
Yes, I've noticed that all of the Bigmouth Bill Bass', Buck the Singing Deer Heads and barking flashlights that my company had purchased to improve productivity just haven't done the job.
Apples and oranges...every decade has its technological wasteland.
-h-
Public companies need stockholder approval before they can issue new common stock. It doesn't happen often for obvious reasons. While buying stock and holding it may drive up the stock price, a significant amount of the stock has to go off the market - way, way more than JT can buy. In most cases, the company's performance determines the stock price much more than holding stock does.
Buying common stock does get you invited to the stockholders' meeting. It doesn't mean that you'll get to ask your question, but you do get to go to the meeting.
-h-
So what? You're suggesting that Symantec is being blocked by US export restrictions because they haven't bothered to renew their export license?
Seems the other way round from how 99% of the other comments read, including the summary at top. To read those, you'd think that it's the export laws themselves that had changed. Or that Symantec are hiding something (cue the conspiracy theorists).
I'm not suggesting that Symantec is being blocked. I'm suggesting that if they want to sell their product outside of North America all that they need to do is obtain an export permit.
I guess that I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, what I posted is 180 degrees out from 99% of the other posts and the summary, but that's no surprise.
-h-
Sure, because there's no possible way that any of those evil hackers and terrorists could get a copy without buying it from Symantec.... [snicker]
Well, no kidding, Captain Obvious, but that wasn't the point of my post. Let me try again. The Reg claims that Symantec can't sell the software outside of the US and Canada because the government imposed a regulation on them. Not true. Symantec claims that a certain section of the EAC prohibits them from selling overseas. Not only not true, but they cited the wrong section.
Symantec appears to be incorrectly using the EAC as an excuse for lazy business practices.
-h-
For example, if you receive $50 in sales for each of 295 people a day, 340 days a year, that's $5,000,000. How many online retailers do you think can manage to do that?
Not all that many - that's over $13,500 per day in sales. That is a big number! For retail trade, $6,000,000 in revenue is the upper end for the Fed's definition of most small businesses.
I've been involved with several successful small businesses in retail and service and none approached that limit.
-h-
Although the Reg article claims that Symantec appears to have had the restriction imposed by the government, both Symantec and the Register seem to have things a little bit wrong.
For starters, section 5A002 of the ECCN covers hardware. Perhaps Symantec meant section 5D002, software. 5D002.c.1 covers their situation. But the list of restricted countries hasn't changed for quite a while - it's the usual gang: Syria, North Korea, Sudan, etc. It seems to me that Symantec is being a little lazy here. Yes, they have to have an export license to sell the software outside of the US, but the restrictions aren't any more onerous than they were in 1999, when the EAR was updated to move cryptographic software from munitions to commerce.
Oh, and this "news" is almost a month old.
-h-
I, for one, welcome our new overlord of hyperbole. Or is it hypebolic overlord?
GGP has a cold.
Arrr, matey, it's not so much a code as it is a guideline.
-h-
Egads, donating to a Christian organization? This is /., after all - look at how hard the Salvation Army got smacked!
-h-
Obviously there's a connection between Gates' net worth and Microsoft. But, so far as I know, Microsoft doesn't make computers. Yeah, the computers run Windows, for the most part, because that's what most computers run. For what it's worth, the computers and software that my local libraries use came from the Micron Foundation. Oh crap, they probably have Micron memory in them - those evil bastards!
The Gates Foundation also gave nearly $6 billion to health initiatives. Does Microsoft make vaccines, too?
Ease up a little. Bill Gates is not the antichrist.
-h-
You're going to have to work hard on this, I know - Bill Gates and Microsoft are not the same thing.
Nice tangent there - I wasn't talking about Microsoft.
How much would Hitler need to have given to charity to bring honor to his name?
Blammo, Godwined right off the bat.
How many Billions does MSFT have laying around in CASH right now??? Not revenue, not capital, but pure CASH... The number is truly staggering.
No, it's not truely staggering for a company with over $39 billion in annual revenue. They've got $37 billion in cash and short term investments on hand (down from $60 billion last year). It's no secret - the company files a form 10K every year. There are lots of interesting details in it - including why they have a lot less money on hand now than they did last year.
-h-
The link doesn't actually say how much of that came from Bill himself. Nor how much of a tax break he got for whatever he did contribute.
Gates fund the foundation himself. Or, I should say, Bill and Melinda fund the foundation themselves.
Tax break? You're kidding me, right? Even if he's in the 35% tax bracket, he's still giving away far more money than he gets from a tax deduction. Besides, you can't get back more than you owe in taxes - I don't think that even Bill Gates can ring up a $28 billion tax bill.
Incidentally, one of the positions that Gates has taken on our "progressive" income tax is that the rich should pay more than the poor in taxes. So has his father (who's a long way from the poorhouse himself).
You know, you can find all this out through Google...
-h-