Actually HP wasn't involved this deal until three years after Carly left. EDS made the contract with the state in 2005. The same year, Carly left HP. Three years LATER, HP bought EDS in 2008.
> The only thing I can really think of would to try to build some kind of reinforced blast cage around it in order to minimize the amount of damage it can do or perhaps try to direct the explosion to minimize hard, much like a gun directs the force of a blast out of the barrel.
Directing the blast is certainly a reasonable approach. You can't really contain it. The container has to be maybe 1,000 times as big as the bomb, and very strong. So not feasible in most cases.
A great many explosives only explode BECAUSE they are confined. If you light a pile of gun powder in the open, you get fire. If you light the same quantity of gun powder inside of a container such as a cannon ball or gun, you get an explosion. The explosion occurs when the pressure gets high enough to burst open the containment.
Other explosives can self-confine - provided there is a significant quantity, the part in the middle is contained by the explosive around it, and that can start a chain reaction of pressure.
All that to say - if it were near an outside wall, assembling a vault around it to direct the energy through that wall would be the way to go. Maybe go ahead and cut a hole in the wall too.
I'm not sure if you're just trolling or if you really, truly don't know what a CD-ROM is, what read-only means.
Before iphones - I mean before the very first iphone, and before Windows 7 or 8, you couldn't download apps. Instead, apps were made out of aluminum- metal. The metal was inside of some plastic. You had to physically walk into a store to buy your apps, and you'd walk out with these metal and plastic circles. Those circles had the apps. You couldn't change them. The operating system was the same way. To update your system, you'd throw away your old"metal circle and buy a new, different one.
> A modern attacker can subvert your system so that old toolchains are subverted to apply further subversions.
Explain please, how you imagine the silver in a pressed Borland Turbo CD or the DOS CD it runs on, is going to get new malware added to 20 years after it was pressed.
The stock Borland Turbo and DOS disks are read-only. That means they can't be changed. I'm not sure what part of read-only you don't understand.
Have a good look at all the permissions that the Facebook app has. I know, it'll take quite a long time to read the whole list. Then look at the terms of use. You've solved a small part of the problem. You are of course free to make your own decisions. Thoee decisions are not without costs.
There's nothing to find in the cert. The first method on pinning is in the browser itself. Microsoft can tell their browser which keys are allowed to sign for update.windows.com before they ship the browser.
Two other strategies are certificate pinning and certificate transparency. For pinning, you declare that only a certain intermediary CA (or root CA) may sign certs for your domain. So Google basically declares that all *.google.com certs must be signed by the specified Google CA. This information can either be hardcoded in the browser (for major sites) or relayed the first time the browser contacts the domain. So with hardcoded pinning, only Google can sign their certs. With http-pinning, another CA could only spoof the cert if the user had never loaded Google before.
The other initiative is certificate transparency. Basically it's a public log of all certs issued by participating CAs. (Non-participating CAs shouldn't be trusted by default). Transparency would have prevented the false Google cert that happened a year or two ago because the unrestricted signing cert granted to the customer would have been immediately flagged as suspicious. If an invalid cert is signed directly by a trusted root CA, it can be detected immediately because Google would be monitoring the public logs and see a cert being issued for their domain. Smaller companies which don't want to directly monitor logs themselves can sign up for a notification service. Suppose I offer such a service and you are my customer. Any time a cert is issued for one of your domains, I'd call you and let you know. You could then take immediate action if it was improper. A company offering such a service would probably also offer assistance in handling the situation.
In particular, I wonder if the Facebook app is installed. It's pretty nasty. If you're not a Facebook-aholic, just use your browser to access facebook.com. If you ARE on Facebook 30 times per day or more, recognize that it's having a significant negative impact on your phone (and probably your life), then decide what you want to do.
If the perpetrators announced that they planned to hack Target and sell your credit card information, would you have shopped there, knowing what would happen? I wouldn't. Maybe you are that stupid, but I don't think most people are.
Ceasing to shop at Target AFTER the hack had already occurred would be closing the barn door after the horses has bolted. You'd only be hoping to indirectly influence management of other companies to hopefully increase the budget for security, which might reduce the risks of some breach somewhere. Switching from Target to Walmart after the news only increases your own risk, because Target's systems were swarmed with security experts from the FBI and private security companies - they got READ security conscious real quick.
Here AVG is announcing ahead of time, "if you use our product we WILL release your information." You can choose now to not have your information released by not using their product.
When I was young and single, I went through a period starting a business where I'd go to sleep whenever I was tired, then wake up whenever I was ready and do something cool with the new business. I might work four hours or I might work 20 before I went to bed again. I might sleep two hours, I might sleep twelve hours. When I wasn't sleeping, I was working, and it was fun to grow a business doing cool new stuff. The internet was new then, so there were about five of us doing search engine optimization- five people in the world who specialised in that. Later I started one of only two companies providing certain types of security services. That was fun too, inventing new technology.
Then I hired people. I had to be in the office certain hours, and I had to do taxes six times per year. I had to deal with the employment commission, unemployment taxes, and insurance companies of various kinds. That was much less fun.
Then I had a family. I had to stop working at 6:00 to help the kids with their homework , etc, then work some more until midnight or sometimes until 4AM. Not fun.
Later I worked for someone else 8-5. Now I'm working for someone else, but at a place where people are "ambitious" , a lot of people work late. They stress about getting everything don. I don't think I'll do that. I think I'll either work 40 hours for 40 hours pay, or I'll stress and work long hours for my own business. I won't get TOO stressed about a business that's not mine.
Anyway, I wasn't really talking about mass-produced units created by network hardware companies. Obviously companies like Cisco and F5 are going to have their own networking code, using the stock OS for management functions.
I was thinking more build-your-own systems, or low production run systems, where you'd use the existing network stack in the OS. The BSDs in general have strong and robust networking. Linux may be more flexible.
So your proposal is to get at Bill Gates's net worth (not cash) by liquidating Microsoft, putting 133,000 MS employees out of work, along with everyone who works for Microsoft suppliers and subcontractors. By doing so, everyone can get $248. Once.
FreeBSD is a good choice for networking appliances in general. For their specific use of software defined networking, given the specific constraints they are working under, and their precise goals... Well, there are people who actually understand a situation, and there are random blowhards on Slashdot who onow much better what should be done, despite not knowing anything about the situation.
Yes, the company is now profitable and revenue continues to grow, with 2015 revenue expected to be around $2 billion.
I don't get the point of Twitter and don't use Twitter. Having said that, anyone who has thousands of engineers and coders and the project doesn't completely explode has probably learned a few lessons along the way. I'm sure I could learn some things from them. Also, I'm willing to learn from anyone who has brought it billions of dollars.
The attitude of people here suggesting there is nothing to be learned from Twitter's experience is silly - because we've ALL built multi-billion dollar companies around a platfom"with tens of millions of users, right? They only have a few tens of millions of users, they don't know anything about scale. We all know way better than them, because each of has BILLIONS of users on our servers, right?
First, he took $25,000 USD cash. Since cash is most definitely money, money was involved. Bitcoin was also involved.
Secondly, a commodity is a fungible thing of value.
Money is a fungible thing of value (commodity) that does not spoil (it's a store of value) which can readily exchanged within a community.
So if it's money it is therefore also a commodity. It's not either/or , it's "yes, this is a commodity, is it also money".
> If Apple is up to something sinister, they would do it at OS level, not app level.
That's the joke. That's why my post is mod 5 funny. The OS DOES do that. So "preparing your files for iOS" would mean watermarking them, adding DRM, and using patented codecs - BECAUSE those are the types of files iOS uses.
> Android is DRM free, then iOS needs to be DRM free.
We know iOS is not at all DRM free. No amount of logic about why they shouldn't use DRM will matters. It's no secret that Apple media is restricted.
> If Android handles pictures without watermarks, then iOS needs to avoid watermarks.
Again, iOS does in fact watermark your files. They may "need" to change that, but they haven't.
iOS markets to a different niche than Android, so they don't need to be "better" in terms of freedom, etc. For their market, they need quality physical construction, high quality displays, and ease of use for the most common tasks.
Indeed I pretty much ignored your first comment because is SOUNDS like a silly chain-mail rumor . "Yeah and Coca-Cola is run by the CIA."
A bit of Google with those names suggests you're right - the leadership of ABCmouse give a bunch of money scientology, and don't hide that fact. Scientology REALLY pisses me off, so we probably won't subscribe to abcmouse, since they'll send some of that money to Scientology.
I've emailed you through your contact form (which seemed to refresh, rather than confirm receipt of the message) and through the email address listed in your whois.
I'm on Slashdot a lot too. More often than I should be, if I want to have mod points.
If you distribute GPL software which you got from someone else, you may only do so under the GPL license. Section 3 of the GPLv2 says:
---- 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code
-----
In other words, you may distribute the binary only if you also distribute the complete source (or offer to).
It also defines "the complete source code", still in section 3: ---- For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. ----
I figure it prepares your data for use on an iOS device - encrypting videos you've shot and adding DRM, watermarks your mp3 with your email address/Apple ID, and converts any patent-free codecs like Ogg Theora to mov with an Apple-patented codec.
> It is kind of funny, but society is solving the problems you list. We are designing better tools that can do the jobs for us and leave us all more leisure time. > If a farmer can work 40 hours and produce 20 times more crops, the farmer will make more money.
That's true. Since 1764, we've been using more and more machines, increasing our productivity and standard of living.
> . This is where we are going, it makes me concerned for the people who can't do the jobs that require a brain (that can't easily be done by computers), as they will have no way to find work when they are competing with a machine.
I believe history shows the opposite - more mechanization has IMPROVED the job prospects for less-skilled labor. Let me explain what I mean.
When I was young, the low-paying jobs were at burger joints. Teenagers who were still learning to show up on time and treat coworkers with respect would fill drink cups and lift the fry basket from the grease when the timer went off. The illiterate gentleman in his 20s was an assistant manager. Will those jobs disappear due to automation? Right now McDonald's is much more automated than it was when I was young.
the human doesn't fill the soda cups the same way way that you do at a regular soda fountain. Rather, the worker just places the cups and the machine decides how full they should be, how fast they should be filled, etc. People don't take the fries out when they are done, either. Rather the fryer ops up up they're done, like a pop-up toaster. It's largely automated, yet the teenagers, the stoned and the illiterate still work there, just as they always have. I suspect that will continue, and there's a reason I think that, beyond historical trends.
When my mom was starting out her career, she coded punch cards to use a computer. Today, my 16-month old daughter uses her own computer. In the call center where I did some system upgrades, junkies and slow thinkers tap away at their terminals. The machines have been idiot-proofed as needed so that idiots can use them.
In 1776, it took decades to become a skilled carpenter, making furniture with the tools of the day. Machines such as table routers were developed which allowed people with much less skill the create the same beautiful edge work, in much less time. If you walk into a furniture factory today, you'll find the machines have improved to the point where a new worker can be trained on each job in a day, maybe three. By their third day, their results will be more consistent than the skilled craftsmen of yesteryear. Better and better machines have meant that MORE jobs can be done by less-skilled workers, not fewer.
> How do the rich actually produce anything? They simply tell others what to do. Not how to do it, they just crack whips. Can't we produce things without their oversight? Do we really need them to pay us for us to do anything?
Let's suppose that's true. Rich people get rich by sitting there doing nothing, while companies magically spring up around them. "Can't we produce things without their oversight?", you ask. If you can, do it. If you can make a software company appear, why not do it rather than sit there complaining while working for the rich guy's company?
You don't need that damn idiot who built the company, you can build your own, right? So DO it, unless you'd RATHER stay up until well after midnight posting on Slashdot, then slog into your office half awake and watch YouTube videos while he makes sure you get paid on time. If you're working for the guy who built the company rather than building your own, that's your choice. Apparently you're getting something out of it, the rich guy is doing something for you that you can;t do for yourself.
Personally, I've done both. I've built and sold a couple of companies. I've been a lazy government worker, and right now I'm working for the rich guy who built this company. Right now, I choose not to be the rich guy running the company, but to be an employee because a) I don't want to work 80 hours per week, b) I want financial security - I don't want to risk what I have, but rather have a stable pay check and c) I want to spend my time doing the work I enjoy, not trying to take care of anything and everything a company has to do each day.
Maybe in a few years I'll decide I want to be the rich guy working 80 hours growing a company again. Maybe you'll want to work for me during the time. Maybe I'll keep doing this 8-5 thing, which is also pretty cool. You have the same choices. If you don't like the choices you've made so far, quit complaining and make different choices. I (and many others) wrote down the instructions for you on how to start a company. If you want a company without "that rich guy" and think you can do it without him, go do it. I did.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually HP wasn't involved this deal until three years after Carly left. EDS made the contract with the state in 2005. The same year, Carly left HP. Three years LATER, HP bought EDS in 2008.
> The only thing I can really think of would to try to build some kind of reinforced blast cage around it in order to minimize the amount of damage it can do or perhaps try to direct the explosion to minimize hard, much like a gun directs the force of a blast out of the barrel.
Directing the blast is certainly a reasonable approach. You can't really contain it. The container has to be maybe 1,000 times as big as the bomb, and very strong. So not feasible in most cases.
A great many explosives only explode BECAUSE they are confined. If you light a pile of gun powder in the open, you get fire. If you light the same quantity of gun powder inside of a container such as a cannon ball or gun, you get an explosion. The explosion occurs when the pressure gets high enough to burst open the containment.
Other explosives can self-confine - provided there is a significant quantity, the part in the middle is contained by the explosive around it, and that can start a chain reaction of pressure.
All that to say - if it were near an outside wall, assembling a vault around it to direct the energy through that wall would be the way to go. Maybe go ahead and cut a hole in the wall too.
> command.com has been modified
I'm not sure if you're just trolling or if you really, truly don't know what a CD-ROM is, what read-only means.
Before iphones - I mean before the very first iphone, and before Windows 7 or 8, you couldn't download apps. Instead, apps were made out of aluminum- metal. The metal was inside of some plastic. You had to physically walk into a store to buy your apps, and you'd walk out with these metal and plastic circles. Those circles had the apps. You couldn't change them. The operating system was the same way. To update your system, you'd throw away your old"metal circle and buy a new, different one.
> A modern attacker can subvert your system so that old toolchains are subverted to apply further subversions.
Explain please, how you imagine the silver in a pressed Borland Turbo CD or the DOS CD it runs on, is going to get new malware added to 20 years after it was pressed.
The stock Borland Turbo and DOS disks are read-only. That means they can't be changed. I'm not sure what part of read-only you don't understand.
Have a good look at all the permissions that the Facebook app has. I know, it'll take quite a long time to read the whole list. Then look at the terms of use. You've solved a small part of the problem. You are of course free to make your own decisions. Thoee decisions are not without costs.
There's nothing to find in the cert. The first method on pinning is in the browser itself. Microsoft can tell their browser which keys are allowed to sign for update.windows.com before they ship the browser.
The second method is via http headers:
https://developer.mozilla.org/...
Two other strategies are certificate pinning and certificate transparency. For pinning, you declare that only a certain intermediary CA (or root CA) may sign certs for your domain. So Google basically declares that all *.google.com certs must be signed by the specified Google CA. This information can either be hardcoded in the browser (for major sites) or relayed the first time the browser contacts the domain. So with hardcoded pinning, only Google can sign their certs. With http-pinning, another CA could only spoof the cert if the user had never loaded Google before.
The other initiative is certificate transparency. Basically it's a public log of all certs issued by participating CAs. (Non-participating CAs shouldn't be trusted by default). Transparency would have prevented the false Google cert that happened a year or two ago because the unrestricted signing cert granted to the customer would have been immediately flagged as suspicious. If an invalid cert is signed directly by a trusted root CA, it can be detected immediately because Google would be monitoring the public logs and see a cert being issued for their domain. Smaller companies which don't want to directly monitor logs themselves can sign up for a notification service. Suppose I offer such a service and you are my customer. Any time a cert is issued for one of your domains, I'd call you and let you know. You could then take immediate action if it was improper. A company offering such a service would probably also offer assistance in handling the situation.
In particular, I wonder if the Facebook app is installed. It's pretty nasty. If you're not a Facebook-aholic, just use your browser to access facebook.com. If you ARE on Facebook 30 times per day or more, recognize that it's having a significant negative impact on your phone (and probably your life), then decide what you want to do.
If the perpetrators announced that they planned to hack Target and sell your credit card information, would you have shopped there, knowing what would happen? I wouldn't. Maybe you are that stupid, but I don't think most people are.
Ceasing to shop at Target AFTER the hack had already occurred would be closing the barn door after the horses has bolted. You'd only be hoping to indirectly influence management of other companies to hopefully increase the budget for security, which might reduce the risks of some breach somewhere. Switching from Target to Walmart after the news only increases your own risk, because Target's systems were swarmed with security experts from the FBI and private security companies - they got READ security conscious real quick.
Here AVG is announcing ahead of time, "if you use our product we WILL release your information." You can choose now to not have your information released by not using their product.
I've done both.
When I was young and single, I went through a period starting a business where I'd go to sleep whenever I was tired, then wake up whenever I was ready and do something cool with the new business. I might work four hours or I might work 20 before I went to bed again. I might sleep two hours, I might sleep twelve hours. When I wasn't sleeping, I was working, and it was fun to grow a business doing cool new stuff. The internet was new then, so there were about five of us doing search engine optimization- five people in the world who specialised in that. Later I started one of only two companies providing certain types of security services. That was fun too, inventing new technology.
Then I hired people. I had to be in the office certain hours, and I had to do taxes six times per year. I had to deal with the employment commission, unemployment taxes, and insurance companies of various kinds. That was much less fun.
Then I had a family. I had to stop working at 6:00 to help the kids with their homework , etc, then work some more until midnight or sometimes until 4AM. Not fun.
Later I worked for someone else 8-5. Now I'm working for someone else, but at a place where people are "ambitious" , a lot of people work late. They stress about getting everything don. I don't think I'll do that. I think I'll either work 40 hours for 40 hours pay, or I'll stress and work long hours for my own business. I won't get TOO stressed about a business that's not mine.
Actually Ericsson and Juniper ARE FreeBSD based.
Anyway, I wasn't really talking about mass-produced units created by network hardware companies. Obviously companies like Cisco and F5 are going to have their own networking code, using the stock OS for management functions.
I was thinking more build-your-own systems, or low production run systems, where you'd use the existing network stack in the OS. The BSDs in general have strong and robust networking. Linux may be more flexible.
So your proposal is to get at Bill Gates's net worth (not cash) by liquidating Microsoft, putting 133,000 MS employees out of work, along with everyone who works for Microsoft suppliers and subcontractors. By doing so, everyone can get $248. Once.
Please, don't vote.
Using the calculations most investors use, they earned 7 cents per share in each of 2015-Q1 and 2015-Q2. See:
http://quotes.wsj.com/TWTR/res...
By GAAP they lost a little bit. GAAP treats certain payments to stockholders as "expenses". Most analysts call it "profit" when investors get paid.
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/it...
FreeBSD is a good choice for networking appliances in general. For their specific use of software defined networking, given the specific constraints they are working under, and their precise goals ... Well, there are people who actually understand a situation, and there are random blowhards on Slashdot who onow much better what should be done, despite not knowing anything about the situation.
Yes, the company is now profitable and revenue continues to grow, with 2015 revenue expected to be around $2 billion.
I don't get the point of Twitter and don't use Twitter. Having said that, anyone who has thousands of engineers and coders and the project doesn't completely explode has probably learned a few lessons along the way. I'm sure I could learn some things from them. Also, I'm willing to learn from anyone who has brought it billions of dollars.
The attitude of people here suggesting there is nothing to be learned from Twitter's experience is silly - because we've ALL built multi-billion dollar companies around a platfom"with tens of millions of users, right? They only have a few tens of millions of users, they don't know anything about scale. We all know way better than them, because each of has BILLIONS of users on our servers, right?
First, he took $25,000 USD cash. Since cash is most definitely money, money was involved. Bitcoin was also involved.
Secondly, a commodity is a fungible thing of value.
Money is a fungible thing of value (commodity) that does not spoil (it's a store of value) which can readily exchanged within a community.
So if it's money it is therefore also a commodity. It's not either/or , it's "yes, this is a commodity, is it also money".
> If Apple is up to something sinister, they would do it at OS level, not app level.
That's the joke. That's why my post is mod 5 funny. The OS DOES do that. So "preparing your files for iOS" would mean watermarking them, adding DRM, and using patented codecs - BECAUSE those are the types of files iOS uses.
> Android is DRM free, then iOS needs to be DRM free.
We know iOS is not at all DRM free. No amount of logic about why they shouldn't use DRM will matters. It's no secret that Apple media is restricted.
> If Android handles pictures without watermarks, then iOS needs to avoid watermarks.
Again, iOS does in fact watermark your files. They may "need" to change that, but they haven't.
iOS markets to a different niche than Android, so they don't need to be "better" in terms of freedom, etc. For their market, they need quality physical construction, high quality displays, and ease of use for the most common tasks.
Indeed I pretty much ignored your first comment because is SOUNDS like a silly chain-mail rumor . "Yeah and Coca-Cola is run by the CIA."
A bit of Google with those names suggests you're right - the leadership of ABCmouse give a bunch of money scientology, and don't hide that fact. Scientology REALLY pisses me off, so we probably won't subscribe to abcmouse, since they'll send some of that money to Scientology.
I've emailed you through your contact form (which seemed to refresh, rather than confirm receipt of the message) and through the email address listed in your whois.
I'm on Slashdot a lot too. More often than I should be, if I want to have mod points.
If you distribute GPL software which you got from someone else, you may only do so under the GPL license. Section 3 of the GPLv2 says:
----
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code
-----
In other words, you may distribute the binary only if you also distribute the complete source (or offer to).
It also defines "the complete source code", still in section 3:
----
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
----
I figure it prepares your data for use on an iOS device - encrypting videos you've shot and adding DRM, watermarks your mp3 with your email address/Apple ID, and converts any patent-free codecs like Ogg Theora to mov with an Apple-patented codec.
> It is kind of funny, but society is solving the problems you list. We are designing better tools that can do the jobs for us and leave us all more leisure time.
> If a farmer can work 40 hours and produce 20 times more crops, the farmer will make more money.
That's true. Since 1764, we've been using more and more machines, increasing our productivity and standard of living.
> . This is where we are going, it makes me concerned for the people who can't do the jobs that require a brain (that can't easily be done by computers), as they will have no way to find work when they are competing with a machine.
I believe history shows the opposite - more mechanization has IMPROVED the job prospects for less-skilled labor. Let me explain what I mean.
When I was young, the low-paying jobs were at burger joints. Teenagers who were still learning to show up on time and treat coworkers with respect would fill drink cups and lift the fry basket from the grease when the timer went off. The illiterate gentleman in his 20s was an assistant manager. Will those jobs disappear due to automation?
Right now McDonald's is much more automated than it was when I was young.
the human doesn't fill the soda cups the same way way that you do at a regular soda fountain. Rather, the worker just places the cups and the machine decides how full they should be, how fast they should be filled, etc. People don't take the fries out when they are done, either. Rather the fryer ops up up they're done, like a pop-up toaster. It's largely automated, yet the teenagers, the stoned and the illiterate still work there, just as they always have. I suspect that will continue, and there's a reason I think that, beyond historical trends.
When my mom was starting out her career, she coded punch cards to use a computer. Today, my 16-month old daughter uses her own computer. In the call center where I did some system upgrades, junkies and slow thinkers tap away at their terminals. The machines have been idiot-proofed as needed so that idiots can use them.
In 1776, it took decades to become a skilled carpenter, making furniture with the tools of the day. Machines such as table routers were developed which allowed people with much less skill the create the same beautiful edge work, in much less time. If you walk into a furniture factory today, you'll find the machines have improved to the point where a new worker can be trained on each job in a day, maybe three. By their third day, their results will be more consistent than the skilled craftsmen of yesteryear. Better and better machines have meant that MORE jobs can be done by less-skilled workers, not fewer.
> How do the rich actually produce anything? They simply tell others what to do. Not how to do it, they just crack whips. Can't we produce things without their oversight? Do we really need them to pay us for us to do anything?
Let's suppose that's true. Rich people get rich by sitting there doing nothing, while companies magically spring up around them. "Can't we produce things without their oversight?", you ask. If you can, do it. If you can make a software company appear, why not do it rather than sit there complaining while working for the rich guy's company?
You don't need that damn idiot who built the company, you can build your own, right? So DO it, unless you'd RATHER stay up until well after midnight posting on Slashdot, then slog into your office half awake and watch YouTube videos while he makes sure you get paid on time. If you're working for the guy who built the company rather than building your own, that's your choice. Apparently you're getting something out of it, the rich guy is doing something for you that you can;t do for yourself.
Personally, I've done both. I've built and sold a couple of companies. I've been a lazy government worker, and right now I'm working for the rich guy who built this company. Right now, I choose not to be the rich guy running the company, but to be an employee because a) I don't want to work 80 hours per week, b) I want financial security - I don't want to risk what I have, but rather have a stable pay check and c) I want to spend my time doing the work I enjoy, not trying to take care of anything and everything a company has to do each day.
Maybe in a few years I'll decide I want to be the rich guy working 80 hours growing a company again. Maybe you'll want to work for me during the time. Maybe I'll keep doing this 8-5 thing, which is also pretty cool. You have the same choices. If you don't like the choices you've made so far, quit complaining and make different choices. I (and many others) wrote down the instructions for you on how to start a company. If you want a company without "that rich guy" and think you can do it without him, go do it. I did.