Cue the powerpoints to management in 5....4....3....2....
Seriously. If you really want to get McAfee out of your org, then just present the business case based on this event. This is so egregious that it's hard to understand how a company of any size could miss this level of QA.
There are plenty of alternatives out there, starting first and foremost with the free option from Microsoft (Microsoft Security Essentials).
I would like to emphasize something as well. I believe proper emphasis should be placed on understanding the empathy involved in this case. I should emphasize that I am not an expert in empathy.
Yes, I know exactly what a corporation is. I own one. Do you realize that corporations are owned by actual people? And those people (owners) hire managers to run the corporation? And those managers are hired/fired at will and are answerable to the owners/shareholders?
My point still stands: the moral hazard created by removing bankruptcy changes behavior at all participant levels and leads to perverted incentives that lead to disastrous results. If there is no risk for the owners, then they have no interest in "correcting" the managers. See Fannie Mae. See Freddie Mac. See countless other recent examples where this is the case.
Risk is moderated by the possibility of failure. Remove the possibility of failure and you change the whole game from "free market" to "centrally planned" allocation of resources. That is part of the beauty of our system and I am saddened that more people do not recognize it.
When you become CEO you should sign a contract saying "I will return 100% of my bonuses if my fuckups cause this company to fail".
They do. It used to be called "bankruptcy". Sadly, we have a serious aversion to that under the current administration because it might be uncomfortable for many people living beyond their means.
GM, GMAC, GE, countless banks, many insurance companies --- all of them "bailed out" of bankruptcy.
And yes, I am bitter and pissed, as are MANY other business owners. My company doesn't get bailed out if I fail. Rather, I lose all my shit and have to start over. And for the record, that's how it should be. Bankruptcy is the ultimate "stick" to keep management and owners from doing stupid and/or risky stuff. Take that option off the table and you create a moral hazard that encourages MORE, rather than less, risk taking. ie: exactly the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish
Market cap is not meaningless. That you suggest it is shows more about your ignorance than the subject at hand. The reason why journalists (and everyone else) quote market cap is simple: It is the current real value of the company. The market capitalization (stock price x number of shares) is the judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to the value of a company. There is no appeal procedure. There is no subjective panel who decides whether to accept the value or not. It simply is what it is and the market decides what the price is.
Everything else you listed is nothing more than an opinion. However, the actual stock price is a fact and can be acted upon. I hope you understand the distinction. One is like the real world (stock price) and the others are like academia (intrinsic value, book value, strength, etc, etc) where we can debate what the numbers should be.
You can not go sell your shares anywhere in the world for "book value".
You can not go sell your shares anywhere in the world for "intrinsic value".
You can not go sell your shares anywhere in the world for "what someone should pay".
You can not go sell your shares anywhere in the world for "strength".
You CAN, however, go sell your shares for whatever price/market cap the shares are being traded at -- right now.
ALL of those things are implied and accounted for in the price of the stock. The stock price is the sum total of all available information in the world, including wars, famine, tea leaves, psychic predictions, and anything else you (or others) believe might affect the company. This all comes out during buying/selling and the price levels that are established throughout the day. For every buyer, there is a seller. For every seller, there is a buyer. Together, they determine the actual, real world prices that you can buy or sell at.
Yes, yes it is. As far back as I can recall -- and that is a long way -- there has always been piracy. To think or even suggest that you can "dent" or outright stop piracy is just wishful thinking. It always has been.
The method will differ, that's all. Goodbye torrents, hello ?????
The only reason this seems odd is because over the last 10 years, the general public has gotten into piracy in a big way. If that hadn't have happened and it was much more "low key" -- we wouldn't be having this discussion and you, most likely, would not even realize piracy was taking place. Now we have torrents. Before that we had http. Before that we had SFTP. Before that we had FTP. Before that we had Zmodem on BBS's. Before that, we had X/Ymodem. And before that we had sneakernet.
The evolution continues...
(sidenote: Remember rule #1. I purposely have a glaring oversight in the list above. Can you spot it? LOL)
Lots of comments but not one that is technically based...
Ok, I'll ask. Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work? Specifically, how would the president hit one button and "shut down" all telecom infrastructure in the country (including wireless). What about the various mesh networks that sprung up?
I am trying to envision how this would work on any technical level and I just can't get there. Yes, you could pretty easily cripple our telecom system here and there but to shut the whole thing down and make it unusable is quite a different scenario.
Not to mention the hacking opportunity this presents. Yes, I am sure there will be many many layers of security....but still.....if the president can do it, then someone else can also do it.
This actually raises (many) more questions than it answers.
In a poor economic situation, cutting spending is a hell of a anti-stimulus for economic activity
Depends on who is doing the cutting. If it's the government then -- you are wrong. Any decreases in government spending is wayyyyyy more than offset by an increase of spending in the private sector (due to not paying the government so much in the form of taxes)
It's not even close and this is why you consistently hear the Republicans say "tax cuts lead to a growing economy". They are 100% right and are backed up both by precedence and history.
My response is simple: Ok, I will invest my money somewhere else. Good luck with your efforts!
See, what happens when you make all of these demands is that eventually, we get to a point where I take my money and I go invest someplace else that has a much better profit opportunity. Why would I want to deal with your world when I can just as easily deploy/invest money somewhere else that has a lower cost of doing business?
You seem to have some delusion that the investors and owners -- you know, the people that put up the capital to start the company in the first place -- are required to participate. Hint: they aren't. One option (that is being used more and more, btw) is to do nothing and just sit on that money. And if nobody is investing, guess what happens to your next job?
But we should seriously start suing countries like China for unfair trade practices like destroying the environment.
This is one of the funniest things I have ever read on Slashdot. Really? Sue the Chinese because they are polluting the environment? What if they turn around and sue us for jealousy?
We could take "encourage development" as another way to say "keep the fucking government out of my business and let me run it". As a business owner in the process control industry, I bet I know which translation he means. Believe me, nobody wants to cozy up to the government right now and certainly not this administration. Companies only do so out of political favor or out of fear.
If you think otherwise, now is your chance to start your own company and deal with the government. (sarchasm on) I am sure they will treat you fairly and I am sure they will do everything they can to make sure you keep as much profit as you can since you are risking so much by starting your own company.(/sarchasm) If you are really lucky, you can work in one of the industries that government is currently "helping" with: finance, insurance, medical, or energy. Good luck!
What's that you say? You don't want to take that kind of risk? Well....neither does this CEO. That's why he wants the government in on the deal on the front end. It minimizes the risk that they will screw him down the road...
Unfortunately, too many people see this as a reason to prevent the wealthy from "gambling" (ie: investing). It's not the gambling/investing that is the problem.
Example: If General Motors can not pay it's bills, then it should file bankruptcy just like any other company in the world. The unions are the reason it got bailed out and they are the pinnacle of cronyism.
Insurance premiums, bought by individuals, are NOT tax deductible unless your medical expenses exceed 2% of your adjusted gross income in the tax year. Then, as you state, they can be deducted like other itemized deductions. However, your claim that they are 100% tax deductible is just.....wrong.
The GP's point stands: corporations get to write off their medical insurance premiums. Individuals who buy it on their own enjoy no such privilege.
By the way, I'd say you were lied to.....but keep listening. Hope is just around the corner.:)
For those that don't know, the Therac-25 is one of the all-time worst human-machine interfaces ever built. I can't help but wonder, based on Woz's comments, if we have a similar situation with Toyota.
Issues like these can be difficult to track down so it would not surprise me at all if that is what we are dealing with here. Multi-years of pseudo-random symptoms and no obvious "solutions" have worked thus far. Not to trivialize it but -- it's a gas pedal. In other words, it should be a simple mechanism for putting fuel into the engine. Of course, we all know modern cars are not so simple. That is precisely why I ask if we have a human-machine interface issue here. ie: you are pushing a lever for the gas but that lever is a "software" lever so who knows what is actually going on in the car's computer.
I can't help but notice that when the issues of pay and perks come up, the unions have no trouble speaking for teachers. Why do they not speak about performance as well? Are they not inextricably linked?
Well said sir. Someone needs to defend owners./. is getting out of control with it's populist attitude. I don't mean that in the "you can believe whatever you want" kind of way. I mean that in a GW Bush-like "you can't just make shit up" kind of way.
And there is lots of making shit up on this site when it comes to discussions of wealth and money.
I bet the rich people in Switzerland are very quiet about their wealth. If that policy was implemented in the USA, all we would read about is police dept's around the country "targeting" wealthy people. Maybe the Swiss police are better than that, I don't know. But the police here in the USA are definitely not capable of handling that amount of responsibility.
Can you imagine the corruption? Warren Buffett would have every state in the union just waiting for him to speed 1 mile an hour over the limit. Surely that isn't fair, is it?
Oh god, no. This is a very very bad idea. We do not need to have our PC's "certified" by a Ministry, Department, or any 3rd party for that matter. Yes, they have done that for cars for pollution testing but it makes no sense for computers.
Do you seriously want some twithead bureaucrat telling you what a "safe" PC is and what a "dangerous" PC is?
I want you to choose a number from 1 to 60. This number represents the amount of seconds before Linux (or some other disliked-by-those-in-power application) goes onto the "dangerous" list. This number also represents how many days you have to install a properly maintained OS, such as those produced by Microsoft, onto your PC. Within 10 days, please bring us proof that you have made the correct repairs and we will waive your fine. Oh, but court costs are 200 euro. Thank you, drive through.
I am deadly serious when I say this: This is one of the all-time worst ideas I have ever read on Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Cue the powerpoints to management in 5....4....3....2....
Seriously. If you really want to get McAfee out of your org, then just present the business case based on this event. This is so egregious that it's hard to understand how a company of any size could miss this level of QA.
There are plenty of alternatives out there, starting first and foremost with the free option from Microsoft (Microsoft Security Essentials).
While I emphasize to this woman's predicament
I would like to emphasize something as well. I believe proper emphasis should be placed on understanding the empathy involved in this case. I should emphasize that I am not an expert in empathy.
Good talk, Russ.
Same for me! Right up until I realized the kid was 9....
Come on, really? You're gonna make that comparison?
Yes, I know exactly what a corporation is. I own one. Do you realize that corporations are owned by actual people? And those people (owners) hire managers to run the corporation? And those managers are hired/fired at will and are answerable to the owners/shareholders?
My point still stands: the moral hazard created by removing bankruptcy changes behavior at all participant levels and leads to perverted incentives that lead to disastrous results. If there is no risk for the owners, then they have no interest in "correcting" the managers. See Fannie Mae. See Freddie Mac. See countless other recent examples where this is the case.
Risk is moderated by the possibility of failure. Remove the possibility of failure and you change the whole game from "free market" to "centrally planned" allocation of resources. That is part of the beauty of our system and I am saddened that more people do not recognize it.
When you become CEO you should sign a contract saying "I will return 100% of my bonuses if my fuckups cause this company to fail".
They do. It used to be called "bankruptcy". Sadly, we have a serious aversion to that under the current administration because it might be uncomfortable for many people living beyond their means.
GM, GMAC, GE, countless banks, many insurance companies --- all of them "bailed out" of bankruptcy.
And yes, I am bitter and pissed, as are MANY other business owners. My company doesn't get bailed out if I fail. Rather, I lose all my shit and have to start over. And for the record, that's how it should be. Bankruptcy is the ultimate "stick" to keep management and owners from doing stupid and/or risky stuff. Take that option off the table and you create a moral hazard that encourages MORE, rather than less, risk taking. ie: exactly the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish
Great post.
/.
It's almost like there is some other force at work (economics) that has to be "just right" for success. Interesting...
Yours is a nice, welcome, and fresh perspective here at
Market cap is not meaningless. That you suggest it is shows more about your ignorance than the subject at hand. The reason why journalists (and everyone else) quote market cap is simple: It is the current real value of the company. The market capitalization (stock price x number of shares) is the judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to the value of a company. There is no appeal procedure. There is no subjective panel who decides whether to accept the value or not. It simply is what it is and the market decides what the price is.
Everything else you listed is nothing more than an opinion. However, the actual stock price is a fact and can be acted upon. I hope you understand the distinction. One is like the real world (stock price) and the others are like academia (intrinsic value, book value, strength, etc, etc) where we can debate what the numbers should be.
You can not go sell your shares anywhere in the world for "book value".
You can not go sell your shares anywhere in the world for "intrinsic value".
You can not go sell your shares anywhere in the world for "what someone should pay".
You can not go sell your shares anywhere in the world for "strength".
You CAN, however, go sell your shares for whatever price/market cap the shares are being traded at -- right now.
ALL of those things are implied and accounted for in the price of the stock. The stock price is the sum total of all available information in the world, including wars, famine, tea leaves, psychic predictions, and anything else you (or others) believe might affect the company. This all comes out during buying/selling and the price levels that are established throughout the day. For every buyer, there is a seller. For every seller, there is a buyer. Together, they determine the actual, real world prices that you can buy or sell at.
Yes, except driving is 100% purely voluntary.
C'mon...you can do better than that. That's pretty weak.
It's not an endless river.
Yes, yes it is. As far back as I can recall -- and that is a long way -- there has always been piracy. To think or even suggest that you can "dent" or outright stop piracy is just wishful thinking. It always has been.
The method will differ, that's all. Goodbye torrents, hello ?????
The only reason this seems odd is because over the last 10 years, the general public has gotten into piracy in a big way. If that hadn't have happened and it was much more "low key" -- we wouldn't be having this discussion and you, most likely, would not even realize piracy was taking place. Now we have torrents. Before that we had http. Before that we had SFTP. Before that we had FTP. Before that we had Zmodem on BBS's. Before that, we had X/Ymodem. And before that we had sneakernet.
The evolution continues...
(sidenote: Remember rule #1. I purposely have a glaring oversight in the list above. Can you spot it? LOL)
Lots of comments but not one that is technically based...
Ok, I'll ask. Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work? Specifically, how would the president hit one button and "shut down" all telecom infrastructure in the country (including wireless). What about the various mesh networks that sprung up?
I am trying to envision how this would work on any technical level and I just can't get there. Yes, you could pretty easily cripple our telecom system here and there but to shut the whole thing down and make it unusable is quite a different scenario.
Not to mention the hacking opportunity this presents. Yes, I am sure there will be many many layers of security....but still.....if the president can do it, then someone else can also do it.
This actually raises (many) more questions than it answers.
In a poor economic situation, cutting spending is a hell of a anti-stimulus for economic activity
Depends on who is doing the cutting. If it's the government then -- you are wrong. Any decreases in government spending is wayyyyyy more than offset by an increase of spending in the private sector (due to not paying the government so much in the form of taxes)
It's not even close and this is why you consistently hear the Republicans say "tax cuts lead to a growing economy". They are 100% right and are backed up both by precedence and history.
My response is simple: Ok, I will invest my money somewhere else. Good luck with your efforts!
See, what happens when you make all of these demands is that eventually, we get to a point where I take my money and I go invest someplace else that has a much better profit opportunity. Why would I want to deal with your world when I can just as easily deploy/invest money somewhere else that has a lower cost of doing business?
You seem to have some delusion that the investors and owners -- you know, the people that put up the capital to start the company in the first place -- are required to participate. Hint: they aren't. One option (that is being used more and more, btw) is to do nothing and just sit on that money. And if nobody is investing, guess what happens to your next job?
But we should seriously start suing countries like China for unfair trade practices like destroying the environment.
This is one of the funniest things I have ever read on Slashdot. Really? Sue the Chinese because they are polluting the environment? What if they turn around and sue us for jealousy?
Yea, it could be the way you describe....or....
We could take "encourage development" as another way to say "keep the fucking government out of my business and let me run it". As a business owner in the process control industry, I bet I know which translation he means. Believe me, nobody wants to cozy up to the government right now and certainly not this administration. Companies only do so out of political favor or out of fear.
If you think otherwise, now is your chance to start your own company and deal with the government. (sarchasm on) I am sure they will treat you fairly and I am sure they will do everything they can to make sure you keep as much profit as you can since you are risking so much by starting your own company.(/sarchasm) If you are really lucky, you can work in one of the industries that government is currently "helping" with: finance, insurance, medical, or energy. Good luck!
What's that you say? You don't want to take that kind of risk? Well....neither does this CEO. That's why he wants the government in on the deal on the front end. It minimizes the risk that they will screw him down the road...
That is exactly correct.
Unfortunately, too many people see this as a reason to prevent the wealthy from "gambling" (ie: investing). It's not the gambling/investing that is the problem.
Example: If General Motors can not pay it's bills, then it should file bankruptcy just like any other company in the world. The unions are the reason it got bailed out and they are the pinnacle of cronyism.
Correction: It is 7.5% of your adjusted gross income. Not 2% as I stated.
I should ask you the same question, sir.
:)
Insurance premiums, bought by individuals, are NOT tax deductible unless your medical expenses exceed 2% of your adjusted gross income in the tax year. Then, as you state, they can be deducted like other itemized deductions. However, your claim that they are 100% tax deductible is just.....wrong.
The GP's point stands: corporations get to write off their medical insurance premiums. Individuals who buy it on their own enjoy no such privilege.
By the way, I'd say you were lied to.....but keep listening. Hope is just around the corner.
On that day all browsers will be HTML5 compatible or they will perish in the flames of user outrage
Or, like the thousands of examples that came before.....people will simply go to another website that does not have such requirements.
But don't let me rain on your parade.
A wiki link to Therac-25 seems appropriate.
For those that don't know, the Therac-25 is one of the all-time worst human-machine interfaces ever built. I can't help but wonder, based on Woz's comments, if we have a similar situation with Toyota.
Issues like these can be difficult to track down so it would not surprise me at all if that is what we are dealing with here. Multi-years of pseudo-random symptoms and no obvious "solutions" have worked thus far. Not to trivialize it but -- it's a gas pedal. In other words, it should be a simple mechanism for putting fuel into the engine. Of course, we all know modern cars are not so simple. That is precisely why I ask if we have a human-machine interface issue here. ie: you are pushing a lever for the gas but that lever is a "software" lever so who knows what is actually going on in the car's computer.
Ok, then who speaks for the teachers?
I can't help but notice that when the issues of pay and perks come up, the unions have no trouble speaking for teachers. Why do they not speak about performance as well? Are they not inextricably linked?
Well said sir. Someone needs to defend owners. /. is getting out of control with it's populist attitude. I don't mean that in the "you can believe whatever you want" kind of way. I mean that in a GW Bush-like "you can't just make shit up" kind of way.
And there is lots of making shit up on this site when it comes to discussions of wealth and money.
right...because that's even more fair.
Speaking as a taxpayer....go fuck yourself.
(sorry, couldn't resist. It was a ripe setup)
I bet the rich people in Switzerland are very quiet about their wealth. If that policy was implemented in the USA, all we would read about is police dept's around the country "targeting" wealthy people. Maybe the Swiss police are better than that, I don't know. But the police here in the USA are definitely not capable of handling that amount of responsibility.
Can you imagine the corruption? Warren Buffett would have every state in the union just waiting for him to speed 1 mile an hour over the limit. Surely that isn't fair, is it?
Oh god, no. This is a very very bad idea. We do not need to have our PC's "certified" by a Ministry, Department, or any 3rd party for that matter. Yes, they have done that for cars for pollution testing but it makes no sense for computers.
Do you seriously want some twithead bureaucrat telling you what a "safe" PC is and what a "dangerous" PC is?
I want you to choose a number from 1 to 60. This number represents the amount of seconds before Linux (or some other disliked-by-those-in-power application) goes onto the "dangerous" list. This number also represents how many days you have to install a properly maintained OS, such as those produced by Microsoft, onto your PC. Within 10 days, please bring us proof that you have made the correct repairs and we will waive your fine. Oh, but court costs are 200 euro. Thank you, drive through.
I am deadly serious when I say this: This is one of the all-time worst ideas I have ever read on Slashdot.