However I've made my everyday account no longer "allowed to administer this computer" which it probably shouldn't have been, anyway... though the change doesn't yield much benefit with regard to the posted or similar risks of trojans.
This has something to do with Steve Lillywhite producing U2 albums 1,2,3... and this one. I cannot count them up to make the current album #14, but the current release is too close to #14 to make this impossible... and dunno what else it could mean. it's probably a bit more than simple moronicity, however.
rrrrrrrright. which explains why you are posting as AC, Mr. Dantz-boy.
looks like you've never used this product. I've used, sold, and supported it since it first appeared. it's had problems from the first day and still does.
Re:Dantz -- getting arrogant in its old age?
on
EMC Buying Dantz
·
· Score: 1
I've both sold AND used Retrospect... because ti was the only thing that did what was needed. So sorry that was the case... horrible borrible. Just happy to confirm that your account is absolutely the same as mine, as recently as a couple of months ago when I paid for a substantial multiuser/server upgrade license for a client, and then could not install it due to this madness of license keys, broken online authorizations, and rather unaccommodating people in their customer service. never again will I send money to this company.
Retrospect is and has been crap for years and years and years. it is impossibly naive about how networks work, just for starters. does unnecessary prep work before beginning that makes backups run ridiculously long... and on my machine, it just loops and loops ad infinitum after the backup is done, with no indication of what it's doing. Tech support and customer service have been dismal, insulting, rude. All in all, this is a very privileged, pretty rich company that thinks it's on top of the world. EMC would be better off hiring a couple of programmers to build and deploy a decent replacement for this train wreck of a product.
I don't see how that's an appropriate description of the issue. You've got allocated memory that's not being used. This is hardly the same as the classic C-language memory leak, where memory is in use and the OS or containing application are not entirely in agreement about it... such that the memory perhaps can't even be reclaimed or deallocated, pointers running past the ends of arrays, that sort of thing. Now THAT is what I'd call a "leak"
Allocating a big thing and forgetting you have it, that's just inefficient use of resources. But in the stated example, you are NOT finished using that memory, you just haven't released it yet.
I suppose we can quibble about whether it supports or refutes my position, but "leak" seems to imply some failure of structure that prevents reclamation.
The line you're looking for is the 4th "role" of an NYSE specialist, acting as "Principal".
I disagree with the conclusion of the article that there is not much difference between a NASDAQ market maker and a NYSE specialist. The specialist is actually in control of the market for a stock, and in exchange for that monopoly, he is obligated to trade in the stock as necessary to keep things moving. A NASDAQ market maker is in open competition with other market makers and does not have a monopoly.
I agree with your conclusion (people use paper) but not with the way you arrived there (people are creatures of habit and they use paper as a matter of habit).
People who don't know anything about process analysis often leave old inefficiencies in processes even when those processes are updated.
But there's more to the story.
People who DO know something about process analysis have a not-awesome record of missing details when trying to "streamline" an ages-old process. Now, I am all for cleaning things up, but what you are seeing is not habit but a pragmatic solution that's quite possibly keeping the company alive until someone who's got his act together comes along to understand everything that must be understood before all those extra piles of paper can truly be removed from the process without breaking something.
Don't blame the end-users for these sorts of things. They aren't the unthinking, habit-driven, Luddite bumpkins they're often made out to be. Look higher up the chain of authority for the sources of excees paper and bad process (not that they'd admit to it).
Now, it's a friendly book y'all but it's also 13-year-old news. Wal*Mart is not in business to just survive. They're quite ruthless toward competitors, vendors, and even the cities in which they appear. The company devotes considerable energy to increasing its bottom line without too much worry about nicey nicey new age synergistic relationships, cuz it's a bit too powerful now to care about that stuff.
Well, nice little pop at the open, but the question still remains... should investors be buying $10,000 worth of Google at any price, in particular with many millions more shares potentially coming to market in 14 to 90 days?
(this question does not require looking at the price-of-the-moment for the stock, which is trading heavily and flapping between 96 and 98).
So if what you are saying is true, it still doesn't quite invalidate Snopes...
the big story, the one that appears on middle-manager Powerpoint slides all across this English-speaking country, is a lot more intricate than that. it's been spun into a tale of corporate missteps, much bigger than the reality.
When I was a kid we twisted names around too, but there's more to this urban legend than that.
That is a really good observation.... yes... it does seem fishy, but part of the IPO process is also this kind of tip-toeing around trying to gauge who takes what at what price. The Google IPO is somewhere in the middle (muddle?) of a pure public auction and a traditional IPO process, and that process is about negotiation as much as sales... so IPO bidders are drawn into a negotiation whether they want to be or not... this is interesting.
In a regular IPO I believe the brokers who are the first step between company and public market, would be aware of how many shares are going out via the IPO AND at what price, and would have a right of refusal up to the last minute.
Now, strictly speaking, a Dutch auction does provide this ability to fix the bid price, but the bidders in this case do not have full information -- picture an in person Dutch auction where you can see exactly where the bidding stands during the period of bidding rather than only after bidding has closed.
I would feel more comfortable having full information about the state of bids, rather than Google reserving that privately.
Actually one of the main jobs of an archivist is to decide what to throw away, and ultimately, almost everything gets thrown away... where would they store it?
If there is a problem with the microfilm, then rather than bitching here, talk to the person responsible for that and figure out why they're putting up with a poor job from the external vendor who's probably making the films. And if they won't listen, go to the library's board of directors and talk to them. These are real people at a local level who can usually be approached and talked to reasonably, and i'm surprised when more peeps don't do that.
Sadly, my local library is pretty rubbish (through no fault of their own - old buildings, lack of budget). The internet gave me a ton more research material.
Here I must disagree and I think you're missing something good. It's not all just information. There's information, and there's knowledge. They don't map 1:1. A good librarian helps navigate through the information so that you get to knowledge. That's what ya want unless you're a database. I'm not a database. I need knowledge and there is way way way too much "information" flapping around out there for me to possibly survey on my own so someone's got to make that first cut, organize i, make it possible for me to find what i need rather than swimming around in a sea of random information.
There is also much more "information" in the world than what you can find on the Internet. In finishing my thesis I made extensive use of off-Internet databases of both specialized and general journals/magazines, that were provided by MY library.
I'm sorry your library is crap. Why don't you spend some time figuring out if there's a way to fix it and then helping to make that happen? Good libraries make other good things happen around them.
Re:Old-fashioned librarians are great people
on
Librarians to the Rescue
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I wish i had some mod points for that IDEA.Civilization / society owe a lot to librarians for just providing some of the glue that holds it all together (as much as it barely sticks together at all). Also you should work with reference librarians whenever possible, and don't give me that crap (prior post) about "we just use the Internet." A great research talent is an incredible secret weapon.
The underlying idea wasn't to take over the company (it'd feel dirty anyway) but to be in a position to exact some attention from its management. Was just a thought, that's all.
So... with the stock now trading at $4, and Sharebuilder.com available to make it super-cheap to buy and hold small numbers of shares ($4 for an "automatic" purchase of any number of shares, but selling is priced more traditionally, around $15 for most people)...
would it be interesting for lots of people with an interest in the SCO v. Linux matter to individually purchase single shares of SCOX?
Market cap is $62M, shares at $4 and change, that's about 15M shares outstanding... per Yahoo, over 75% of the shares are tied up in big holders, so individuals could not attain a controlling interest (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SCOX)
but... being an owner of even one share of stock makes the company accountable to the shareholder, with the attendant expense of keeping track of the shareholder, and responding via shareholder relations to shareholders' inquiries.
Shareholders also have the right to nominate directors at the 2005 annual meeting, and to introduce shareholder resolutions to be considered at the annual meeting. Note that as of the 2004 annual meeting, the next meeting was expected to happen around April 19, 2005, and that such proposals are due WELL in advance (4 months anyway)
No proposals have been submitted by stockholders of the Company for consideration at the Annual Meeting. It is anticipated that the next annual meeting of stockholders will be held on or about April19, 2005. Stockholders may present proposals for inclusion in the proxy statement to be mailed in connection with the 2005 annual meeting of stockholders of the Company, provided such proposals are received by the Company in writing no later than November6, 2004 and are otherwise in compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission regulations regarding the inclusion of stockholder proposals in company-sponsored proxy materials.
In addition, the Company's Bylaws permit stockholders to nominate directors at the annual meeting by providing advance written notice to the Company. In order to make a director nomination at a stockholder meeting, a stockholder must notify the Company not fewer than 120days in advance of any meeting of stockholders called for the election of directors. Similarly, the Company's Bylaws permit stockholders to cause other business to be conducted at any meeting of stockholders by providing advance written notice to the Company. In order for such business to be conducted at a stockholder meeting, a stockholder must notify the Company not fewer than 120days in advance of the meeting of stockholders. Assuming the date of next year's annual meeting is April19, 2005, any notice required under the Bylaws as described in this paragraph must be received by the Company no later than December20, 2004 in order to be timely for next year's annual meeting. In addition, the notice must meet all other requirements contained in the Company's Bylaws.
A stockholder may contact the Corporate Secretary of the Company at its headquarters for a copy of the relevant Bylaw provisions regarding the requirements for making stockholder proposals and nominating director candidate
Caveats as follows: The author is not an investment advisor, attorney, or accountant. He's not even wholly qualified to write the letters "SCOX" in a public place. Investing carries risks of all kinds. Owning shares of stock may create tax liabilities and reporting overhead that doesn't exist if you don't own shares of stock. Consult someone who knows what the hell they are talking about before doing anything this stupid.
you should be sacked for not following this policy. it's not your place to override something like that, potentially creating all kinds of liability and not just in terms of "catching" teh company trying to do something bad to you
im my view, "having a decent middle-class job" does not constitute a life well- or aggressively-lived, and that seems to be exactly what this school may prepare its graduates for. My future has never been very certain, but I am so grateful that I have never really held a traditional "job" that gave me no freedom to grow except within some sort of predefined structure. And don't even get me started on the life-wasting and soul-destroying activities in "productive' work places, like office politics, requisitioning more staples, time clocks, and meetings meetings meetings.
I apologise if this is not what you are suggesting, but the phrase "meaningful contributions to our society.." is often taken to mean taking a position as a functional unit at "a company" doing, well, doesn't much matter what. Society could stand a few more altruistic thinkers and not so many worker-units, but i'm not getting my hopes up.
Slashdot Mirror
I almost feel sorry for John Jacob Johnson of 101 Main St., Anytown, MO 33221 because he gets a LOT of mail that stores think they're sending to me.
How do you know pets don't have souls?
I just ran Repair Permissions, and have:However I've made my everyday account no longer "allowed to administer this computer" which it probably shouldn't have been, anyway... though the change doesn't yield much benefit with regard to the posted or similar risks of trojans.
That's funny, except...
This has something to do with Steve Lillywhite producing U2 albums 1,2,3... and this one. I cannot count them up to make the current album #14, but the current release is too close to #14 to make this impossible... and dunno what else it could mean. it's probably a bit more than simple moronicity, however.
rrrrrrrright. which explains why you are posting as AC, Mr. Dantz-boy.
looks like you've never used this product. I've used, sold, and supported it since it first appeared. it's had problems from the first day and still does.
I've both sold AND used Retrospect... because ti was the only thing that did what was needed. So sorry that was the case... horrible borrible. Just happy to confirm that your account is absolutely the same as mine, as recently as a couple of months ago when I paid for a substantial multiuser/server upgrade license for a client, and then could not install it due to this madness of license keys, broken online authorizations, and rather unaccommodating people in their customer service. never again will I send money to this company.
Retrospect is and has been crap for years and years and years. it is impossibly naive about how networks work, just for starters. does unnecessary prep work before beginning that makes backups run ridiculously long... and on my machine, it just loops and loops ad infinitum after the backup is done, with no indication of what it's doing. Tech support and customer service have been dismal, insulting, rude. All in all, this is a very privileged, pretty rich company that thinks it's on top of the world. EMC would be better off hiring a couple of programmers to build and deploy a decent replacement for this train wreck of a product.
Your signature is particularly ironic in light of this news.
The fact that an "independent" (as in not company-owned) news resource was forced offline and its equipment seized *is* the newsworthy information.
You call this a *leak* ?
I don't see how that's an appropriate description of the issue. You've got allocated memory that's not being used. This is hardly the same as the classic C-language memory leak, where memory is in use and the OS or containing application are not entirely in agreement about it... such that the memory perhaps can't even be reclaimed or deallocated, pointers running past the ends of arrays, that sort of thing. Now THAT is what I'd call a "leak"
Allocating a big thing and forgetting you have it, that's just inefficient use of resources. But in the stated example, you are NOT finished using that memory, you just haven't released it yet.
Google thinks this is a well-liked definition of "memory leak":
I suppose we can quibble about whether it supports or refutes my position, but "leak" seems to imply some failure of structure that prevents reclamation.
on NASDAQ there is no requirement that a trader take a position as counterparty. Pink sheets, good luck finding anyone to trade with.
Listed stocks on the NYSE do have specialists who ensure order flow and who eat unwanted shares, as you state. This is not the case in NASDAQ.
This reference will help explain things:
Investopedia definition of market makers and specialists.
The line you're looking for is the 4th "role" of an NYSE specialist, acting as "Principal".
I disagree with the conclusion of the article that there is not much difference between a NASDAQ market maker and a NYSE specialist. The specialist is actually in control of the market for a stock, and in exchange for that monopoly, he is obligated to trade in the stock as necessary to keep things moving. A NASDAQ market maker is in open competition with other market makers and does not have a monopoly.
I agree with your conclusion (people use paper) but not with the way you arrived there (people are creatures of habit and they use paper as a matter of habit).
People who don't know anything about process analysis often leave old inefficiencies in processes even when those processes are updated.
But there's more to the story.
People who DO know something about process analysis have a not-awesome record of missing details when trying to "streamline" an ages-old process. Now, I am all for cleaning things up, but what you are seeing is not habit but a pragmatic solution that's quite possibly keeping the company alive until someone who's got his act together comes along to understand everything that must be understood before all those extra piles of paper can truly be removed from the process without breaking something.
Don't blame the end-users for these sorts of things. They aren't the unthinking, habit-driven, Luddite bumpkins they're often made out to be. Look higher up the chain of authority for the sources of excees paper and bad process (not that they'd admit to it).
Sam Walton died in 1992 and his book came out the same year.
Now, it's a friendly book y'all but it's also 13-year-old news. Wal*Mart is not in business to just survive. They're quite ruthless toward competitors, vendors, and even the cities in which they appear. The company devotes considerable energy to increasing its bottom line without too much worry about nicey nicey new age synergistic relationships, cuz it's a bit too powerful now to care about that stuff.
Automotive cooling fans also run then the vehicles themselves are NOT running. A mechanical fan connected to the engine can't do that!
Well, nice little pop at the open, but the question still remains... should investors be buying $10,000 worth of Google at any price, in particular with many millions more shares potentially coming to market in 14 to 90 days?
(this question does not require looking at the price-of-the-moment for the stock, which is trading heavily and flapping between 96 and 98).
So if what you are saying is true, it still doesn't quite invalidate Snopes...
the big story, the one that appears on middle-manager Powerpoint slides all across this English-speaking country, is a lot more intricate than that. it's been spun into a tale of corporate missteps, much bigger than the reality.
When I was a kid we twisted names around too, but there's more to this urban legend than that.
Actually this needs yet another correction in a long successions of trying to shut down this myth.
the NoVa story isn't true, see Snopes for details http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp
That is a really good observation....
yes...
it does seem fishy, but part of the IPO process is also this kind of tip-toeing around trying to gauge who takes what at what price. The Google IPO is somewhere in the middle (muddle?) of a pure public auction and a traditional IPO process, and that process is about negotiation as much as sales... so IPO bidders are drawn into a negotiation whether they want to be or not... this is interesting.
In a regular IPO I believe the brokers who are the first step between company and public market, would be aware of how many shares are going out via the IPO AND at what price, and would have a right of refusal up to the last minute.
Now, strictly speaking, a Dutch auction does provide this ability to fix the bid price, but the bidders in this case do not have full information -- picture an in person Dutch auction where you can see exactly where the bidding stands during the period of bidding rather than only after bidding has closed.
I would feel more comfortable having full information about the state of bids, rather than Google reserving that privately.
Actually one of the main jobs of an archivist is to decide what to throw away, and ultimately, almost everything gets thrown away... where would they store it?
If there is a problem with the microfilm, then rather than bitching here, talk to the person responsible for that and figure out why they're putting up with a poor job from the external vendor who's probably making the films. And if they won't listen, go to the library's board of directors and talk to them. These are real people at a local level who can usually be approached and talked to reasonably, and i'm surprised when more peeps don't do that.
Ultimately, it's all just information.
Sadly, my local library is pretty rubbish (through no fault of their own - old buildings, lack of budget). The internet gave me a ton more research material.
Here I must disagree and I think you're missing something good. It's not all just information. There's information, and there's knowledge. They don't map 1:1. A good librarian helps navigate through the information so that you get to knowledge. That's what ya want unless you're a database. I'm not a database. I need knowledge and there is way way way too much "information" flapping around out there for me to possibly survey on my own so someone's got to make that first cut, organize i, make it possible for me to find what i need rather than swimming around in a sea of random information.
There is also much more "information" in the world than what you can find on the Internet. In finishing my thesis I made extensive use of off-Internet databases of both specialized and general journals/magazines, that were provided by MY library.
I'm sorry your library is crap. Why don't you spend some time figuring out if there's a way to fix it and then helping to make that happen? Good libraries make other good things happen around them.
I wish i had some mod points for that IDEA.Civilization / society owe a lot to librarians for just providing some of the glue that holds it all together (as much as it barely sticks together at all). Also you should work with reference librarians whenever possible, and don't give me that crap (prior post) about "we just use the Internet." A great research talent is an incredible secret weapon.
The underlying idea wasn't to take over the company (it'd feel dirty anyway) but to be in a position to exact some attention from its management. Was just a thought, that's all.
would it be interesting for lots of people with an interest in the SCO v. Linux matter to individually purchase single shares of SCOX?
Market cap is $62M, shares at $4 and change, that's about 15M shares outstanding... per Yahoo, over 75% of the shares are tied up in big holders, so individuals could not attain a controlling interest (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SCOX)
but... being an owner of even one share of stock makes the company accountable to the shareholder, with the attendant expense of keeping track of the shareholder, and responding via shareholder relations to shareholders' inquiries.
Shareholders also have the right to nominate directors at the 2005 annual meeting, and to introduce shareholder resolutions to be considered at the annual meeting. Note that as of the 2004 annual meeting, the next meeting was expected to happen around April 19, 2005, and that such proposals are due WELL in advance (4 months anyway)
From SCO: 2004 Proxy statement, including 2005 shareholder meeting info
No proposals have been submitted by stockholders of the Company for consideration at the Annual Meeting. It is anticipated that the next annual meeting of stockholders will be held on or about April19, 2005. Stockholders may present proposals for inclusion in the proxy statement to be mailed in connection with the 2005 annual meeting of stockholders of the Company, provided such proposals are received by the Company in writing no later than November6, 2004 and are otherwise in compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission regulations regarding the inclusion of stockholder proposals in company-sponsored proxy materials.
In addition, the Company's Bylaws permit stockholders to nominate directors at the annual meeting by providing advance written notice to the Company. In order to make a director nomination at a stockholder meeting, a stockholder must notify the Company not fewer than 120days in advance of any meeting of stockholders called for the election of directors. Similarly, the Company's Bylaws permit stockholders to cause other business to be conducted at any meeting of stockholders by providing advance written notice to the Company. In order for such business to be conducted at a stockholder meeting, a stockholder must notify the Company not fewer than 120days in advance of the meeting of stockholders. Assuming the date of next year's annual meeting is April19, 2005, any notice required under the Bylaws as described in this paragraph must be received by the Company no later than December20, 2004 in order to be timely for next year's annual meeting. In addition, the notice must meet all other requirements contained in the Company's Bylaws.
A stockholder may contact the Corporate Secretary of the Company at its headquarters for a copy of the relevant Bylaw provisions regarding the requirements for making stockholder proposals and nominating director candidate
Caveats as follows:
The author is not an investment advisor, attorney, or accountant. He's not even wholly qualified to write the letters "SCOX" in a public place. Investing carries risks of all kinds. Owning shares of stock may create tax liabilities and reporting overhead that doesn't exist if you don't own shares of stock. Consult someone who knows what the hell they are talking about before doing anything this stupid.
you should be sacked for not following this policy. it's not your place to override something like that, potentially creating all kinds of liability and not just in terms of "catching" teh company trying to do something bad to you
all those o's reminded me of gooooogle. can we google the universe for life?
im my view, "having a decent middle-class job" does not constitute a life well- or aggressively-lived, and that seems to be exactly what this school may prepare its graduates for. My future has never been very certain, but I am so grateful that I have never really held a traditional "job" that gave me no freedom to grow except within some sort of predefined structure. And don't even get me started on the life-wasting and soul-destroying activities in "productive' work places, like office politics, requisitioning more staples, time clocks, and meetings meetings meetings.
I apologise if this is not what you are suggesting, but the phrase "meaningful contributions to our society.." is often taken to mean taking a position as a functional unit at "a company" doing, well, doesn't much matter what. Society could stand a few more altruistic thinkers and not so many worker-units, but i'm not getting my hopes up.