They're buying it because they think it will make them money.
Simple as that.
Just because they started out providing one type of service doesn't mean they can't offer something new.
Investors want to see the value add. If there's no benefit to the merged company, then they won't be interested in the deal. You have to keep the investors in mind when talking about a public company.
And when a company is deciding who will buy them, they tend to look for the same. True, they look at the offer price, but since those offers often have some kind of dependency of future profits, it's in their best interest to find a good match.
The only exceptions to this are your large conglomerates like GE or SPX, but they offer management and financial backing to the companies they own (though they will frequently drain a company for all it's worth before selling it off if it doesn't make them money).
And performance is only increased depending on the RAID levels available. Most likely they will be simply 0 or 1. With 0 you'll get performance, with 1 you'll get security. The article implies you'll get both, which really isn't accurate.
Well, you get performance boost from the striping and a lot of disk space from level 0. You get a read performance boost by reading from which ever disk is idle without too much of a write performance hit (if both writes can be done in parallel), a large disk space hit, and hardware fault tolerance with level 1. So for people that do a lot of reads without too many writes, and don't need all the disk space, this is a good thing.
In my submission I said Japan has 21 percent and the US has 33 percent.
I trust everyone noticed that the original posting was a joke and aren't getting all bent out of shape because they thought it was serious. That said, the part of your posting that made it to the front page said 1/5, 33%, 66%, and 47.8%. The article itself said 21%, but the joke was about the pointy haired bosses thinking that 1/5 is bigger than 33%. Alas, it's lost all humor now. Time to go find someone with bad morale and flog them until they cheer up.
You said Japan is behind, but without using the word behind. So one has to compare 1/5 with 33%. Should take an average person 1 second, the average dothead maybe 20 seconds (first 15 are used to post a comment), and we've given up hope on Dilbert's boss.
Or at least that's the initial impression without doing the numbers. Reminds me of an old Dilbert:
Secretary: I can't believe it. Boss: What? Secretary: 40% of all sick days are on Monday and Friday. Boss: What!?! Do they think they can really get away with that? Secretary: No, they can do math.
Terrorist have been know to use communication devices, like video taped messages played over the television, phones, radios, and even the internet. Everyone that broadcast television, uses a phone, has a CB radio, or connects to the internet is likely a terrorist and should be stopped.
Terrorist have been known to use guns. Most police have guns. We should lock up all of the police officers.
Terrorist have been known to speak a foreign language. French people speak a foreign language. We must invade before they get a chance to surrender.
Terrorist have been known to have dark skin. People who visit beaches seem to have darker skin. We should get rid of Miami. They didn't speak english down there anyway.
I don't know what's worse, the fact that someone would suggest this, or the fact that our representatives in congress might believe this (or at least use it as an excuse to push some corporate funded law).
Re:Has anyone managed to short SCO stock?
on
SCO On the Rocks
·
· Score: 1
I never short stocks (it tends to be easier, cheaper, and less risky to play in the small and micro cap markets), so corrections to this are welcome.
To short the stock, you're broker will most likely need to find the stock held in a margin account (perhaps there are other ways, but I believe this is the most common). That's why when you hold a stock with a dividend in a margin account, sometimes you get the dividend and the tax benefits, and other times you get a payment from the person who borrowed your stock to short. I don't know if brokers will only search their own accounts or not, so there's the possibility that you can't find any shares, but someone at a different brokerage can.
That being said, this thing looks to be saturated by shorts (and therefore something I say away from since it can be painful to be buying back your shares in a short squeeze):
[ From Yahoo ] Float: 10.00M % Held by Insiders: 42.81% % Held by Institutions: 44.82% Shares Short (as of 10-Jan-05): 4.39M Daily Volume (as of 10-Jan-05): N/A Short Ratio (as of 10-Jan-05): 34 Short % of Float (as of 10-Jan-05): 43.86% Shares Short (prior month): 4.88M
Basically, it would take 34 days of normal trading volume for the shorts to buy back all of their shares. And if I'm reading that right (insiders are counted as part of the float?) then there are more shorts than there are insiders.
All of this says that the idea of shorting this junk has been considered by far too many people before you and the risks are therefore too high and reward is too low.
Submit a request for their mortgage (or buy the rolex)... 51992019 times (at last check)... with a made up name... and the phone number and street address of the FBI office in NYC (or maybe CIA or NSA)... and the email address of their hosting provider's abuse department... I'm sure they filter it out, but if enough geeks "validate the quality of the company we wish to transact business with" using, say, apache benchmark (ab), then the bandwidth costs and CPU time they have to spend on the constant flood will re-balance the cost effectiveness of spam.
Yes, it's basically a linux version of the Lycos screen saver that doesn't care if the spammers site is DoS'd.
Then again, constantly having ab running could be the cause of the sizzling sound that was made by my cheap switch right before it died.
actually despite what the person who posted this article implies, LA is not a monolithic sign on like Passport
Actually it was just a bad attempt to be funny before the morning sugar rush hits my head. But the implication that we can be authenticated via a whole long list of places proves my point a little more rather than less. Mainly that we are simply going to have a long list of places to authenticate to just like we already have, so what did we fix? Or to put it another way, my dad has 6 different universal remotes to work his TV/VCR/DVD/Receiver/etc. While each one could work everything, he claims there are advantages to each one for working a specific device.
Personally, I kinda like the current "everyone does their own thing" system since I can pick who I give the real information to vs who gets the fake information, and give each one email and street addresses (the street address is done by adding an ATTN line) that I can map back to who I gave that data to. It means I see who sells my identifying information to who and can pick and chose who to cut off or throw away without opening. Now I'll have to manage a separate LA account for each company I want to have only a portion of my identifying data, so we're back to the same problem, which I don't see needing a fix.
Microsoft or Sun, we need more choices, like a different single sign on system for everything we log into. Oh, wait, we already have that. Now what where we trying to fix again?
This isn't new. You can do exactly the same thing with a PABX with ISDN ports.
Read the article. The interesting part isn't that this is some new feature. The interesting part is that you don't have to go out and get a lot of expensive telephone equipment to intercept blocked numbers and impersonate someone else's number.
And, as was said before, the biggest fear this creates is that someone will start grabbing the ready-to-activate credit cards out of the mail, look up the persons name in a phone book, program their voip with that persons number, and activate that card. And this is only a problem because credit card companies trust that Joe Shmoe was really him when he called from his home number.
Fair point. Though I never trust anything I download, and my sharing is done through a separate system. I can't use the magnet links myself, but I think this works:
Are you just guessing? Or pulling figures out of your ass? The US is sending like 56.7% of all SPAM.
To pull a figure out of my own ass, I'd guess that 56.7% of all insecure machines that can be hijacked and used to relay spam are located in the US. That doesn't mean that the person doing the hijacking is in the US, which is why you need agreements with China, Korea, Brasil, Russia, etc.
They could do that already. This just means they are targetting spammers.
By that logic, they could have targeted spammers already, too. The fear here isn't so much that they can't do this already, but that they have one more tool to legitimize investigating someone that may not have done anything. Now you have to prove to a judge that not only are you not an enemy combatant, terrorist, cult member, nor gun owner without your nra card, but you also have never sent a spam. What's that, you forwarded a joke to granny 5 years ago, bye bye privacy. Was that an mp3 you just sent to a friend, that's piracy, why don't you enjoy a stay in this cell while we research what else you've been doing. Enforce the laws as they stand equally to everyone and there will be a lot fewer tin foil hats. Go around with lots of laws and pick the person you want to enforce them upon, and I'll go buy some more stock in aluminum foil. If this were truely an anti-spam measure, we would have Russia on board. China I can understand, but Russia should work with us here.
share information and work together to detect, investigate and track spammers
So is this just forming some back channels to track anyone, or are their limits to ensure that only spammers are tracked. And if there are limits, how do they define a spammer?
It's called money. The more software you have to keep on your machine to make it work, the more money the software writers make. Not to mention that with MS getting into the AV market, the AV vendors will need something else to keep them in business.
2. Does this win them the X-Prize
A: No. They've got to do it twice, in quick succession.
And they need 3 people on-board.
From the article:
Scaled Composites is one of 24 companies from several countries competing for the $10 million Ansari X Prize, which will go to the first privately funded group to send three people on a suborbital flight 62.5 miles (100.6 kilometers) high and repeat the feat within two weeks using the same vehicle.
From everything I've been seeing lately, work is increasing, but much more for the independent contractors than for the large companies. With everyone trying to save a buck, these people are likely on the leading edge of any up-tick. After a co-worker was laid off and spent too long looking for another job, he went independent and is booked solid for the next several months, and makes his salary after just over half a year of projects. Granted, you can't be the typical office leach in this position, and you spend a lot longer doing your taxes.
We all just seem to assume that if you offered your property for $1/track, that piracy would vanish. Well, they took us up on that challenge, and piracy hasn't vanished.
Actually, if I could find the bands I enjoy for $1/track as an mp3, then sure, I'd pay it, even if there was an inaudible watermark in the file. But $1/track for some DRM'd file that I can't play on any device I own isn't going to change anything.
Because you are probably a sysadmin with a degree from DeVry and don't understand that notation, I'll explain it simply: O(1) means "really fast".
<CS101>
If we are being educational, lets do it right. O(1) does not mean really fast. A calculation that takes 6 years could still be O(1). O(1) simply means the calculation is constant, regardless of what is input. O(n) basically means the more data (n) you give it, the longer it takes. And you can take it from there (double it, square it, take a log, whatever floats your boat). One thing to keep in mind is that the more complex you get to speed things up and get closer to an O(1), the more likely you are to take longer for the simple calculations than a basic O(n) formula. Or to put it another way, all of us that want to do a quick sum of columns of a small table would prefer not to wait 10 minutes while the kitchen sink and travelling salesman algorithms load.
</CS101>
Yes, when you setup port forwarding to a non-existant machine, then the whole point is to prevent access from the WAN side. It's a simple workaround that people should be aware of.
The message that I included was a possible explination for what people are seeing. Mainly that a person could access the administrative functions from the WAN IP address if they were physically in the LAN, but not if they were truly on the WAN with traffic coming over the physical WAN interface. The logical explination is that the filtering is done by physical interface and not IP address as some may expect (but I would say that physical interface filtering is a better implementation).
This was followed up by multiple people saying it doesn't work. The most likely explination comes from Jason Munro who says: > Testing this issue with a recently purchased WRT54G here showed that while > I can access the web interface on the WAN IP from the LAN behind the > linksys, I can not access it from another location on the WAN side.
Also, there were other replies saying that you could fix this by forwarding these ports to non-existant IP's if you were able to reproduce the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
They're buying it because they think it will make them money.
Simple as that.
Just because they started out providing one type of service doesn't mean they can't offer something new.
Investors want to see the value add. If there's no benefit to the merged company, then they won't be interested in the deal. You have to keep the investors in mind when talking about a public company.
And when a company is deciding who will buy them, they tend to look for the same. True, they look at the offer price, but since those offers often have some kind of dependency of future profits, it's in their best interest to find a good match.
The only exceptions to this are your large conglomerates like GE or SPX, but they offer management and financial backing to the companies they own (though they will frequently drain a company for all it's worth before selling it off if it doesn't make them money).
And performance is only increased depending on the RAID levels available. Most likely they will be simply 0 or 1. With 0 you'll get performance, with 1 you'll get security. The article implies you'll get both, which really isn't accurate.
Well, you get performance boost from the striping and a lot of disk space from level 0. You get a read performance boost by reading from which ever disk is idle without too much of a write performance hit (if both writes can be done in parallel), a large disk space hit, and hardware fault tolerance with level 1. So for people that do a lot of reads without too many writes, and don't need all the disk space, this is a good thing.
For the confused, check wikipedia
In my submission I said Japan has 21 percent and the US has 33 percent.
I trust everyone noticed that the original posting was a joke and aren't getting all bent out of shape because they thought it was serious. That said, the part of your posting that made it to the front page said 1/5, 33%, 66%, and 47.8%. The article itself said 21%, but the joke was about the pointy haired bosses thinking that 1/5 is bigger than 33%. Alas, it's lost all humor now. Time to go find someone with bad morale and flog them until they cheer up.
You said Japan is behind, but without using the word behind. So one has to compare 1/5 with 33%. Should take an average person 1 second, the average dothead maybe 20 seconds (first 15 are used to post a comment), and we've given up hope on Dilbert's boss.
Or at least that's the initial impression without doing the numbers. Reminds me of an old Dilbert:
Secretary: I can't believe it.
Boss: What?
Secretary: 40% of all sick days are on Monday and Friday.
Boss: What!?! Do they think they can really get away with that?
Secretary: No, they can do math.
Some Internet safety experts have said anti-spam laws have been difficult to enforce...
Some??? Who's this so called expert that claimed they are easy the enforce?
If you claim to be under 13, does that prevent you from seeing porn, online banking, and one day, online voting?
To continue bad logic 101, let's try:
Terrorist have been know to use communication devices, like video taped messages played over the television, phones, radios, and even the internet. Everyone that broadcast television, uses a phone, has a CB radio, or connects to the internet is likely a terrorist and should be stopped.
Terrorist have been known to use guns. Most police have guns. We should lock up all of the police officers.
Terrorist have been known to speak a foreign language. French people speak a foreign language. We must invade before they get a chance to surrender.
Terrorist have been known to have dark skin. People who visit beaches seem to have darker skin. We should get rid of Miami. They didn't speak english down there anyway.
I don't know what's worse, the fact that someone would suggest this, or the fact that our representatives in congress might believe this (or at least use it as an excuse to push some corporate funded law).
I never short stocks (it tends to be easier, cheaper, and less risky to play in the small and micro cap markets), so corrections to this are welcome.
To short the stock, you're broker will most likely need to find the stock held in a margin account (perhaps there are other ways, but I believe this is the most common). That's why when you hold a stock with a dividend in a margin account, sometimes you get the dividend and the tax benefits, and other times you get a payment from the person who borrowed your stock to short. I don't know if brokers will only search their own accounts or not, so there's the possibility that you can't find any shares, but someone at a different brokerage can.
That being said, this thing looks to be saturated by shorts (and therefore something I say away from since it can be painful to be buying back your shares in a short squeeze):
[ From Yahoo ]
Float: 10.00M
% Held by Insiders: 42.81%
% Held by Institutions: 44.82%
Shares Short (as of 10-Jan-05): 4.39M
Daily Volume (as of 10-Jan-05): N/A
Short Ratio (as of 10-Jan-05): 34
Short % of Float (as of 10-Jan-05): 43.86%
Shares Short (prior month): 4.88M
Basically, it would take 34 days of normal trading volume for the shorts to buy back all of their shares. And if I'm reading that right (insiders are counted as part of the float?) then there are more shorts than there are insiders.
All of this says that the idea of shorting this junk has been considered by far too many people before you and the risks are therefore too high and reward is too low.
Submit a request for their mortgage (or buy the rolex)...
51992019 times (at last check)...
with a made up name...
and the phone number and street address of the FBI office in NYC (or maybe CIA or NSA)...
and the email address of their hosting provider's abuse department...
I'm sure they filter it out, but if enough geeks "validate the quality of the company we wish to transact business with" using, say, apache benchmark (ab), then the bandwidth costs and CPU time they have to spend on the constant flood will re-balance the cost effectiveness of spam.
Yes, it's basically a linux version of the Lycos screen saver that doesn't care if the spammers site is DoS'd.
Then again, constantly having ab running could be the cause of the sizzling sound that was made by my cheap switch right before it died.
actually despite what the person who posted this article implies, LA is not a monolithic sign on like Passport
Actually it was just a bad attempt to be funny before the morning sugar rush hits my head. But the implication that we can be authenticated via a whole long list of places proves my point a little more rather than less. Mainly that we are simply going to have a long list of places to authenticate to just like we already have, so what did we fix? Or to put it another way, my dad has 6 different universal remotes to work his TV/VCR/DVD/Receiver/etc. While each one could work everything, he claims there are advantages to each one for working a specific device.
Personally, I kinda like the current "everyone does their own thing" system since I can pick who I give the real information to vs who gets the fake information, and give each one email and street addresses (the street address is done by adding an ATTN line) that I can map back to who I gave that data to. It means I see who sells my identifying information to who and can pick and chose who to cut off or throw away without opening. Now I'll have to manage a separate LA account for each company I want to have only a portion of my identifying data, so we're back to the same problem, which I don't see needing a fix.
Microsoft or Sun, we need more choices, like a different single sign on system for everything we log into. Oh, wait, we already have that. Now what where we trying to fix again?
This isn't new. You can do exactly the same thing with a PABX with ISDN ports.
Read the article. The interesting part isn't that this is some new feature. The interesting part is that you don't have to go out and get a lot of expensive telephone equipment to intercept blocked numbers and impersonate someone else's number.
And, as was said before, the biggest fear this creates is that someone will start grabbing the ready-to-activate credit cards out of the mail, look up the persons name in a phone book, program their voip with that persons number, and activate that card. And this is only a problem because credit card companies trust that Joe Shmoe was really him when he called from his home number.
Post a magnet link, next time.
Fair point. Though I never trust anything I download, and my sharing is done through a separate system. I can't use the magnet links myself, but I think this works:
CCNA-manual.doc
could someone please post the Word file here as well
/., but I put it up on Shareaza's G2. Search for CCNA-manual.doc.
It's over 500 pages, so not really postable to
Are you just guessing? Or pulling figures out of your ass? The US is sending like 56.7% of all SPAM.
To pull a figure out of my own ass, I'd guess that 56.7% of all insecure machines that can be hijacked and used to relay spam are located in the US. That doesn't mean that the person doing the hijacking is in the US, which is why you need agreements with China, Korea, Brasil, Russia, etc.
They could do that already. This just means they are targetting spammers.
By that logic, they could have targeted spammers already, too. The fear here isn't so much that they can't do this already, but that they have one more tool to legitimize investigating someone that may not have done anything. Now you have to prove to a judge that not only are you not an enemy combatant, terrorist, cult member, nor gun owner without your nra card, but you also have never sent a spam. What's that, you forwarded a joke to granny 5 years ago, bye bye privacy. Was that an mp3 you just sent to a friend, that's piracy, why don't you enjoy a stay in this cell while we research what else you've been doing. Enforce the laws as they stand equally to everyone and there will be a lot fewer tin foil hats. Go around with lots of laws and pick the person you want to enforce them upon, and I'll go buy some more stock in aluminum foil. If this were truely an anti-spam measure, we would have Russia on board. China I can understand, but Russia should work with us here.
share information and work together to detect, investigate and track spammers
So is this just forming some back channels to track anyone, or are their limits to ensure that only spammers are tracked. And if there are limits, how do they define a spammer?
Why isn't spyware classified as viral code?
It's called money. The more software you have to keep on your machine to make it work, the more money the software writers make. Not to mention that with MS getting into the AV market, the AV vendors will need something else to keep them in business.
2. Does this win them the X-Prize
A: No. They've got to do it twice, in quick succession.
And they need 3 people on-board.
From the article:
Scaled Composites is one of 24 companies from several countries competing for the $10 million Ansari X Prize, which will go to the first privately funded group to send three people on a suborbital flight 62.5 miles (100.6 kilometers) high and repeat the feat within two weeks using the same vehicle.
From everything I've been seeing lately, work is increasing, but much more for the independent contractors than for the large companies. With everyone trying to save a buck, these people are likely on the leading edge of any up-tick. After a co-worker was laid off and spent too long looking for another job, he went independent and is booked solid for the next several months, and makes his salary after just over half a year of projects. Granted, you can't be the typical office leach in this position, and you spend a lot longer doing your taxes.
We all just seem to assume that if you offered your property for $1/track, that piracy would vanish. Well, they took us up on that challenge, and piracy hasn't vanished. Actually, if I could find the bands I enjoy for $1/track as an mp3, then sure, I'd pay it, even if there was an inaudible watermark in the file. But $1/track for some DRM'd file that I can't play on any device I own isn't going to change anything.
Because you are probably a sysadmin with a degree from DeVry and don't understand that notation, I'll explain it simply: O(1) means "really fast".
<CS101>
If we are being educational, lets do it right. O(1) does not mean really fast. A calculation that takes 6 years could still be O(1). O(1) simply means the calculation is constant, regardless of what is input. O(n) basically means the more data (n) you give it, the longer it takes. And you can take it from there (double it, square it, take a log, whatever floats your boat). One thing to keep in mind is that the more complex you get to speed things up and get closer to an O(1), the more likely you are to take longer for the simple calculations than a basic O(n) formula. Or to put it another way, all of us that want to do a quick sum of columns of a small table would prefer not to wait 10 minutes while the kitchen sink and travelling salesman algorithms load.
</CS101>
Yes, when you setup port forwarding to a non-existant machine, then the whole point is to prevent access from the WAN side. It's a simple workaround that people should be aware of.
The message that I included was a possible explination for what people are seeing. Mainly that a person could access the administrative functions from the WAN IP address if they were physically in the LAN, but not if they were truly on the WAN with traffic coming over the physical WAN interface. The logical explination is that the filtering is done by physical interface and not IP address as some may expect (but I would say that physical interface filtering is a better implementation).
This was followed up by multiple people saying it doesn't work. The most likely explination comes from Jason Munro who says:
> Testing this issue with a recently purchased WRT54G here showed that while
> I can access the web interface on the WAN IP from the LAN behind the
> linksys, I can not access it from another location on the WAN side.
Also, there were other replies saying that you could fix this by forwarding these ports to non-existant IP's if you were able to reproduce the issue.