Governance is one thing, profit distribution is another topic. If the employees are the shareholders, they get the profits.
Of course, there is still a weakness with opaque governance, since the head of the company can decide to give huge wage to the CEO, or to reinvest everything so that there is no profit left for employees. I do not know how Huawei does in that area, I just picked it as an example of a big employee-owned company.
Oddly such an abuse would be the exact opposite of what we usually see in western megacorporations: no money for wages and investement, everything for the shareholders.
France and China surprisingly share some political attributes: old nations, with strong central government that are huge industrial actors and strategists. I guess it helps a lot for getting involved into expensive, long term, and danerous stuff such as nuclear power.
But the industrial-involved government trend has been declining in France, as EU rules forbid governments from doing anything with the economy, except perhaps using taxpayers money to save banks.
Its also easy to not share your wealth with your workers.
It depends of company structure. For instance Huawei is owned by its employees. Here the CEO cannot choose to give back some wealth created by employees, he just have to.
You could consider that preserving a sane public school environment is a duty to your child. Even if you do not send him to public school, at one point he will have to interact with the one that went there. If public school is a corrupting environment, it will be bad for your child. Except if he lives forever in a gettho fro rich people, of course.
Physics is similar in that even if you never use specific facts learned in the class, the approach to problem solving stays with you
Observe, imagine a theory, test it. I always found strong proximity of approach between physics and any kind of reverse engineering and bug tracking. The approach helps being a programmer or a syadmin.
And for what it's worth, some of the UN research team members are starting to say there is a clear indication that it was the rebels, not the government who did it.
A investigation targeting a person in retaliation to its speech? That looks like what happens in third word countries with corrupted administrations. Although in that situation, bribery is usually the way to settle, and I am not convinced it could help here.
I am not a billion-worth transnational corporation. I cannot afford the lawyers to fight this case, nor I can pay the bonds to remain out of prison during the trial. They can.
Since US justice got completely unfair regarding the indicted's wealth, there is some moral duty for however can afford to get landmark ruling to take the risk for it.
But moral duties is not increasing shareholder's profits, hence it is an alien concept for a mega corporation. This is why they are going toward this minimal service path: they just do PR.
That's really risky though, because in many cases where the law is controversial, the courts will just go with applying the law exactly as it is written.
That is the point. If you believe the gag order is unconstitutional, break it, get sued, and ask the court to apply the constitution (which trumps the law) as it is written.
Observing the law first means you believe it may stand. That makes your position rather weak.
"telephone (service) providers refuse to use because it is financially unviable."
I suspect this should translate into "not enough profitable". When shareholders want a two digit ROI figures, companies leave behind themselves any profitable project that does not result in a two-digit ROI.
An alternative solution: first break the gag order, then wait for government attacking in court, and then defend. Attacking for the right to speak seems a looser's position.
Many people will have trouble killing a human, because empathy creates a barrier. On the other hand, I suspect anyone can "kill" a robot without any hesitation nor any remorse.
There is a big problem here. Tax payers fund a University. It turns no student can take its courses. Obviously, tax payers will have to reconsider what they are paying. Will they remove funds from the University for undergraduate studies? Ask University to be some kind of high school?
It wasn't too long ago Carla Del Ponte from the UN's inquiry on this issue was stating publicly that eye-witness accounts paint the rebels as the ones who used the weapons, not Assad's forces. Kerry likes to think that only Assad has access to chemical weapons but the US's record on WMD intelligence is, i'm sorry to say, lacking to say the least.
I wish I had mod points for your post. This is going the same route as Iraq's WMD
Slashdot Mirror
Governance is one thing, profit distribution is another topic. If the employees are the shareholders, they get the profits.
Of course, there is still a weakness with opaque governance, since the head of the company can decide to give huge wage to the CEO, or to reinvest everything so that there is no profit left for employees. I do not know how Huawei does in that area, I just picked it as an example of a big employee-owned company.
Oddly such an abuse would be the exact opposite of what we usually see in western megacorporations: no money for wages and investement, everything for the shareholders.
France and China surprisingly share some political attributes: old nations, with strong central government that are huge industrial actors and strategists. I guess it helps a lot for getting involved into expensive, long term, and danerous stuff such as nuclear power.
But the industrial-involved government trend has been declining in France, as EU rules forbid governments from doing anything with the economy, except perhaps using taxpayers money to save banks.
Its also easy to not share your wealth with your workers.
It depends of company structure. For instance Huawei is owned by its employees. Here the CEO cannot choose to give back some wealth created by employees, he just have to.
Any encryption will be broken, it is just a matter of time. And we can expect NSA to have first grade encryption cracking capabilities.
The first line of defense when trying to keep data private is to avoid leaking it, even encrypted.
If STEM graduates can't find traditional STEM jobs, she says, 'they will end up in other sectors of the economy and be productive
In other words, STEM workers are more productive than average on non STEM positions? That would be a good point for subsiding STEM education
The EU is a phenomenon, and give it another 20 or 30 years and it will be something our kids read about in the history books
You are optimist. We can hope to get rid of it much faster, thank to how hard bureaucrats are working to make it stand against reality and people will
Your primary duty is to your child.
You could consider that preserving a sane public school environment is a duty to your child. Even if you do not send him to public school, at one point he will have to interact with the one that went there. If public school is a corrupting environment, it will be bad for your child. Except if he lives forever in a gettho fro rich people, of course.
Physics is similar in that even if you never use specific facts learned in the class, the approach to problem solving stays with you
Observe, imagine a theory, test it. I always found strong proximity of approach between physics and any kind of reverse engineering and bug tracking. The approach helps being a programmer or a syadmin.
And for what it's worth, some of the UN research team members are starting to say there is a clear indication that it was the rebels, not the government who did it.
More information for whoever is interested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
You do need to be somewhat of an idiot, at least about finances
You confuse intelligence and greed.
A investigation targeting a person in retaliation to its speech? That looks like what happens in third word countries with corrupted administrations. Although in that situation, bribery is usually the way to settle, and I am not convinced it could help here.
But the TFA says he is not in prison for breaking a gag order, or for refusing NSA plans, but for insider trading...
I am not a billion-worth transnational corporation. I cannot afford the lawyers to fight this case, nor I can pay the bonds to remain out of prison during the trial. They can.
Since US justice got completely unfair regarding the indicted's wealth, there is some moral duty for however can afford to get landmark ruling to take the risk for it.
But moral duties is not increasing shareholder's profits, hence it is an alien concept for a mega corporation. This is why they are going toward this minimal service path: they just do PR.
That's really risky though, because in many cases where the law is controversial, the courts will just go with applying the law exactly as it is written.
That is the point. If you believe the gag order is unconstitutional, break it, get sued, and ask the court to apply the constitution (which trumps the law) as it is written.
Observing the law first means you believe it may stand. That makes your position rather weak.
There can be many possible typos. How could you be sure a typo I make in public is part of a password?
As of a dirty little secret, I just told you that dictionary attacks will not be enough to crack my passwords. Not a big deal.
IMO they should never have put dangerous stuff in the hands of a for profit company.
From TFA:
"telephone (service) providers refuse to use because it is financially unviable."
I suspect this should translate into "not enough profitable". When shareholders want a two digit ROI figures, companies leave behind themselves any profitable project that does not result in a two-digit ROI.
Actually, "Jeremy was born in 1985" is a rather good password. Add a typo and it is even better: "Jeremi was born in 1985"
An alternative solution: first break the gag order, then wait for government attacking in court, and then defend. Attacking for the right to speak seems a looser's position.
It seems you could easily distribute the load on multiple machines, each doing a subset of the regex.
Many people will have trouble killing a human, because empathy creates a barrier. On the other hand, I suspect anyone can "kill" a robot without any hesitation nor any remorse.
I am surprised there is no bitcoin exchange in offshore juridiction that are usually money laundering friendly
There is a big problem here. Tax payers fund a University. It turns no student can take its courses. Obviously, tax payers will have to reconsider what they are paying. Will they remove funds from the University for undergraduate studies? Ask University to be some kind of high school?
It wasn't too long ago Carla Del Ponte from the UN's inquiry on this issue was stating publicly that eye-witness accounts paint the rebels as the ones who used the weapons, not Assad's forces. Kerry likes to think that only Assad has access to chemical weapons but the US's record on WMD intelligence is, i'm sorry to say, lacking to say the least.
I wish I had mod points for your post. This is going the same route as Iraq's WMD
Once again, we are reminded that Religion should not deal with science (and the other way around). IMO the same is true for religion and politics.