Meanwhile, Monsanto only has interest in getting GM seed spread across the planet so they can later sue for ownership of wherever the seeds find themselves.
Not so. They make a profit on the seeds themselves and it expands their market for their pesticides. That's sufficient motivation to want to sell their seeds everywhere they can.
"Anonymous is a handful of geniuses surrounded by a legion of idiots,"
You can probably say this about most organizations in the world.
It seems more applicable to the IT guys at the Vatican. Calling the Vatican IT guys geniuses might be an overstatement, but it's clear they're surrounded by a legion of idiots. The Vatican guys who hired the smart IT guys also qualify as clearly not-of-the-legion.
Calling the Anonymous creeps "geniuses" only feeds their narcissism. They're not that smart. The story makes clear several mistakes that geniuses would not have made:
telegraphed the fact that they were planning to attack the Vatican, allowing the Vatican to discover their plan and take countermeasures
recruited complete idiots (more-on that later).
got around to assessing the target's vulnerability after announcing their intent to attack
seriously underestimated their target's vulnerability
I guess there is a certain genius in getting thousands mindless drones to help you carry out a DDNS attack. It seems like that's the only thing they were even moderately successful at in this case.
It's not clear to me and maybe not to anybody that there is any central planning involved in Anonymous, or that the people who carried out attacks on one service under the Anonymous name are even associated with the Anonymous group that carried out another attack. Maybe that's why there's such a wide variation in their degree of success and choice of targets.
But back to that legion of idiots they depend on. How stupid do you have to be to take part in one of these attacks? You would seem to have to be unaware or accepting of the following facts:
You really have no idea who is the real target of the attack. You have to trust Anonymous. By definition, you don't know they're people you can trust.
The software they ask you to download and run could be some (other) sort of malware, in which case your computer is the target.
You are much more likely to be identified than the Anonymous Cowards who provided you with the software that carries out the attack.
Your computer equipment might be seized as part of an investigation.
You could be charged with a crime.
In no case is there any actual benefit to you of cooperating with their scheme.
Having stock equals ownership. Collectively, the owners can do anything they damn please with the company including firing all the employees, selling off the assets and pocketing the resulting cash.
From the shareholders' perspective, money handed out in bonuses that could have been distributed to investors is indeed pissed away.
Shareholders are foolish if they allow a company to hold more money than it knows how to invest profitably.
"But the root of all these evils is the love of money, and there are some who have desired it and have erred from the faith and have brought themselves many miniseries." (Timothy 6:10)
There's your proof of divinely inspired prophesy. Only God and Timothy knew of miniseries 2000 years ago.
Also this proves that God has condemned television.
It's not a matter of whether the employees deserve anything. When has that ever been an issue in corporate governance and finance?
Legally, the money belongs to the corporation and the corporation belongs to its shareholders.
The shareholders have a right to demand return on their investment. What do you think will happen to the value of Apple stock if the investors are told that they will never see a profit on their investment unless they sell it?
Meanwhile, the money sits there burning a hole in management's pocket. They could invest it, but what investment these days seems that much better than profit on your investments? Or they could buy back stock or pay dividends or... this is the big risk... it becomes a temptation for the corporate managers to pay themselves huge and unjustified salary and bonuses. If the investors don't get their share of the profits, there's a risk that management will just piss it away and they'll never get paid.
If they really tried to do what you're suggesting and give it to employees, then what do you think would happen to the value of stock? You'd lose the value of all the trust that investors put in management to run the company efficiently and for their benefit.
Very much on point. Science results are at best only as good as the equipment and calibration that go into the measurements and as everybody except the so very smart scientists at CERN who decided to publish highly questionable results, it turns out now that there appear to have been faults in both.
What's more troublesome is the rush to publish these bad results and the resulting media show that can only make science look bad.
Bad science has that effect.
If you have a theory in which you are x% confident you shouldn't be publishing results that conflicts with that theory unless your confidence in your experimental apparatus, calibration and analysis are better than x%. Instead, you should say, "Gosh, it's a whole lot more likely that there's something wrong in my experiment than that the theory is wrong."
It would be damned hard to design an experiment that's sufficiently reliable to call relativity into question at this point. These guys should have their Ph.D.'s impounded until they grow some humility and common sense.
A recently divorced friend of mine has that kind of issue (needing to weed out problems), as some of his friends are still reporting things back to his ex.
I have to fault you for incorrect use of the word "friend."
The police can illicit a confession with or without evidence... ; it's amazing how many false confessions a good interrogator can acquire, if given the chance.
The USA doesn't have any locations (like Wyoming, Colorado or the Dakotas) with an abundance of cheap energy, high speed data connections and local cheap power.
How about selling political stability and business climate?
That presumes there is effective treatment for autism in infants, which there is not. The best you can hope for is to warn the parents what they may be facing.
Slashdot Mirror
Em waves don't HAVE orbital angular momentum.
Meanwhile, Monsanto only has interest in getting GM seed spread across the planet so they can later sue for ownership of wherever the seeds find themselves.
Not so. They make a profit on the seeds themselves and it expands their market for their pesticides. That's sufficient motivation to want to sell their seeds everywhere they can.
They are ... in the press ...
You can't make the public pay attention.
when it comes to this sort of thing, yet financial terrorists are allowed to roam and loot without the slightest problem.
The people you call financial terrorists are only 100x as smart and they don't make the mistake of taunting law enforcement and government.
You can't arrest the idea of driving too fast either. The arrests are for deterrence.
Hoe is it that slashdot is populated with so many people who think messing with somebody else's computer is acceptable and shouldn't be a crime?
Because there's usually a financial angle to fraud networks. They probably suspect them of using computers for.more than vandalism.
Maybe he'll also patent that business model.
"Anonymous is a handful of geniuses surrounded by a legion of idiots,"
You can probably say this about most organizations in the world.
It seems more applicable to the IT guys at the Vatican. Calling the Vatican IT guys geniuses might be an overstatement, but it's clear they're surrounded by a legion of idiots. The Vatican guys who hired the smart IT guys also qualify as clearly not-of-the-legion.
Calling the Anonymous creeps "geniuses" only feeds their narcissism. They're not that smart. The story makes clear several mistakes that geniuses would not have made:
I guess there is a certain genius in getting thousands mindless drones to help you carry out a DDNS attack. It seems like that's the only thing they were even moderately successful at in this case.
It's not clear to me and maybe not to anybody that there is any central planning involved in Anonymous, or that the people who carried out attacks on one service under the Anonymous name are even associated with the Anonymous group that carried out another attack. Maybe that's why there's such a wide variation in their degree of success and choice of targets.
But back to that legion of idiots they depend on. How stupid do you have to be to take part in one of these attacks? You would seem to have to be unaware or accepting of the following facts:
Having stock equals ownership. Collectively, the owners can do anything they damn please with the company including firing all the employees, selling off the assets and pocketing the resulting cash.
From the shareholders' perspective, money handed out in bonuses that could have been distributed to investors is indeed pissed away.
Shareholders are foolish if they allow a company to hold more money than it knows how to invest profitably.
And who decides what an asshole is? A muslim cleric would say that insulting allah makes you an asshole and you should be fined (or worse).
A jury of your peers.
(Matthew 19:24)
"But the root of all these evils is the love of money, and there are some who have desired it and have erred from the faith and have brought themselves many miniseries."
(Timothy 6:10)
There's your proof of divinely inspired prophesy. Only God and Timothy knew of miniseries 2000 years ago.
Also this proves that God has condemned television.
Being an asshole should be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine.
Standard deviation of the measurement does not imply accuracy. Systematic errors cause erroneous results without contributing to standard deviation.
That looked like a pun to me.
It's not a matter of whether the employees deserve anything. When has that ever been an issue in corporate governance and finance?
Legally, the money belongs to the corporation and the corporation belongs to its shareholders.
The shareholders have a right to demand return on their investment. What do you think will happen to the value of Apple stock if the investors are told that they will never see a profit on their investment unless they sell it?
Meanwhile, the money sits there burning a hole in management's pocket. They could invest it, but what investment these days seems that much better than profit on your investments? Or they could buy back stock or pay dividends or ... this is the big risk ... it becomes a temptation for the corporate managers to pay themselves huge and unjustified salary and bonuses. If the investors don't get their share of the profits, there's a risk that management will just piss it away and they'll never get paid.
If they really tried to do what you're suggesting and give it to employees, then what do you think would happen to the value of stock? You'd lose the value of all the trust that investors put in management to run the company efficiently and for their benefit.
Sure, because avoiding competion in commodity businesses is what gave them their cash problem in the first place.
Then they'd have MORE cash.
Informative+insightful
You'll never get an idea like that past the board. Boards work for shareholders and management works for the BOD.
Apple is ripe for a shareholder revolt.
Very much on point. Science results are at best only as good as the equipment and calibration that go into the measurements and as everybody except the so very smart scientists at CERN who decided to publish highly questionable results, it turns out now that there appear to have been faults in both.
What's more troublesome is the rush to publish these bad results and the resulting media show that can only make science look bad.
Bad science has that effect.
If you have a theory in which you are x% confident you shouldn't be publishing results that conflicts with that theory unless your confidence in your experimental apparatus, calibration and analysis are better than x%. Instead, you should say, "Gosh, it's a whole lot more likely that there's something wrong in my experiment than that the theory is wrong."
It would be damned hard to design an experiment that's sufficiently reliable to call relativity into question at this point. These guys should have their Ph.D.'s impounded until they grow some humility and common sense.
A recently divorced friend of mine has that kind of issue (needing to weed out problems), as some of his friends are still reporting things back to his ex.
I have to fault you for incorrect use of the word "friend."
The police can illicit a confession with or without evidence ... ; it's amazing how many false confessions a good interrogator can acquire, if given the chance.
... and for misuse of the word "good."
They already sell your info to advertisers. Maybe if the police offered them a few bucks...
You've just made a good argument why farming should not be a free market. I wonder if you realize that.
The USA doesn't have any locations (like Wyoming, Colorado or the Dakotas) with an abundance of cheap energy, high speed data connections and local cheap power.
How about selling political stability and business climate?
That presumes there is effective treatment for autism in infants, which there is not. The best you can hope for is to warn the parents what they may be facing.