Fortunately for you, a President WILL be set today. Something tells me you were maybe hoping for a precedent to be set in this case, though...
Re:SOX has created jobs, just sucky ones
on
How To Create More Jobs
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
While I agree that this has happened to some extent, it describes what is happening at fly-by-night "audit firms" and other shady outfits far more than it does at the established accounting and consulting firms, who are drawing on staff that have long worked with projects involving government regulation and really have minimal need to create any kind of 'new breed'.
What I don't get is how TFA can say:
"have acted more for theatrical purposes rather than any legitimate reason. Basically, all they've done is create new reporting requirements that do little to nothing to either prevent fraud or clarify a company's actual financial position."
There have always been audits. The effectiveness of audits to uncover fraud and clarify financial positions has never been questioned (unless the firm conducting the audit was corrupt). The only difference now with SOX is which companies are subject to audit. Saying that audits dont prevent fraud or provide clearer views of finances is a fairly absurd accusation.
After all, these same companies are conducting similar audits during mergers and acquisitions. What's good for the goose...
Astounding how we, as a country, can have comments like the ones in this thread, and like the ones in TFA, that continue to stand up for deregulation of the financial markets, having less accountability, requiring less transparency, while the entire system is collapsing precisely because of a lack or regulation, accountability, and transparency.
You all are standing in the lobby of a skyscraper that is collapsing, preaching to the screaming people who are frantically running out the doors that 'this is exactly why we should enforce less standards when we build skyscrapers!' Everyone is looking at you like you are the retarded maniac that you probably are.
*Gasp* an internal control audit, you say!? Why, that doesn't make any sense... that a publically traded company (whose business model relies on their business partners, who are private companies, remaining financially solvent) should require those private companies to attain attestation to the effectiveness of their own internal controls? How dare they. That just sounds, so... so...
I know a guy who works on this tech, they can already fit in a cell phone. It's just not affordable. He tells me as the price of the lasers comes down, it will become commonplace to have a projector in your cell phone. I think he anticipated 2010...
"It is quite extraordinary to find a fossil landscape preserved over such a vast area; and we are talking about an area the size of [the British city of] Bristol."
Without the edit, I may have thought it was a reference to someone else...
What a complete non-answer. Your reliance on flimsy "necessary steps" is exactly why the industry is dealing with these problems right now. What is necessary? If I'm transporting disks with your data on it, does it have to be a secured armored vehicle, or is a lock box enough? Can the guy carrying it be a convicted felon, or a minimum wage security guard? If I have your data on my laptop, does it have to be encrypted. Is an 56 bit DES algo enough or does it have to be the most modern encryption scheme available? Who sets these rules and are they enforced only after data loss ( or are there periodic audits?
The credit card industry has identified similar problems of responsibility in its business process and implemented a standard that companies have to comply with if they want to avoid being responsible for major losses (PCI). A good example of private industry trying to solve a problem without government regulation (albeit setup mostly so the few credit card companies can push financial losses back down to the merchants and vendors).
FCC is asserting authority over Internet Providers, or, put another way, the people who control the resources that the public relies on. Completely different than asserting authority over the content of usage of the internet. In fact, the FCC appears to be specifically positioning itself out of having to deal with questions of content. It's almost like they want to have 'neutrality'.. seems like I've heard that word used somewhere recently...
Not sure how this is propaganda? The summary and articles are reporting facts, and it's interesting to consider, since this is some of the first reporting ever done on the subject of an active "cyberfront" of a currently waging (albeit de-escalating) real war.
Dell has removed the top line of function keys and tied them as alts to the number row, which should allow them to have slightly more space in the keyboard region and hopefully make for a more pleasant typing experience. I know Wind users and some EeePC users complain about cramped keyboards.
Battery life/cost is absolutely the key issue for me, though.
Until Dell releases their E series netbooks. The specs are promising (please include a 6-cell battery), they look very good, and the price point reflects a "race to the bottom" that I fear Asus's EeePC series has forgotten.
Of course then the dual cores will start coming out later in the year, but I doubt I can wait until then, especially at these prices.
"Please note that nothing in these recommendations should b e construed as a recommendation to change the current House rules and regulations governing the content of official communications."
This is an attempt to deal with technical issues and update existing House rules to keep up with technology. There's a lot of FUD in the article summary and in TFA.
You seem to be operating under the notion that companies install CCTV systems to protect victims of crimes that occur on company property.
This, however, is business and not altruism. Businesses need CCTV to protect themselves from prosecution and to ease the insurance claims process. For example, they need to know that some guy in a hoodie ran up to that old lady, threw her on to the ground and ran off, not that she slipped on the wet surface left by an employee. They definitely care about that. The identity of the attacker? Not so much. So the expenses surrounding the recording and storage of high-resolution images is simply overkill for the company's needs.
Oh, brilliant! Users were almost universally disappointed with Vista's inability to live up to its hardware support claims, so why not ride that train right through Ubuntu's face?
I mean, come on, folks. Microsoft could have setup 5 computers that would have run Vista flawlessly as well. As my links pointed out above, claiming that Ubuntu (or Vista) supports almost everything you throw at it is not "telling the truth". It is just another irresponsible claim made by overzealous writers and marketers that would prefer to use some nice fuzzy language to breeze over an issue, rather than actually stop and address it.
- "Lying, like the Microsoft people did about Vista is a huge mistake but no one said everything works - that's a commercial software thing."
- "Ubuntu 8.4 remains one of the best desktop distributions for many good reasons: it works with almost any hardware you throw at it"
Linux to Infoworld: please leave the ridiculous hardware support claims to Microsoft. Vista drivers should make the Vaporware top 10 list, Ubuntu has never made any claims such as the one you just did, primarily because it isn't true.
I sincerely enjoy the Linux experience and appreciate the community, but this statement is positively absurd. Ubuntu's own help files contain extensive lists of wireless cards that have a big fat "No" listed under the "Works out of the box" column. And that's just wireless cards.
One of the primary reasons that the average person abandons Linux is the frustration caused by these types of misleading claims. Somebody says, "Hey, virtually everything works out of the box!" and they think... wow, well, I buy my stuff at top retailers from top brands, surely then my stuff is supported.
Unfortunately for them, their stuff may not work at all, or may work partially. Lots of gotchas for Video cards, scanners.. the list goes on and on. Nobody is well served by making statements that indicate anything except that hardware support is still a major obstacle for the adoption of Linux on the desktop.
I think you meant Freemasons, not stonemasons, unless you are cursing HP for their conspiracies to create beautiful sculptures and pretty stone engravings.
They obviously haven't been successful in prosecuting them for that, though.
If I were them, I'd be very careful about jaywalking, cramping my wheels to the curb, and making sure my mattress tags were intact. It's called a shitlist; an idea not entirely unfamiliar to TPB admins, I'm sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately for you, a President WILL be set today. Something tells me you were maybe hoping for a precedent to be set in this case, though...
What I don't get is how TFA can say:
"have acted more for theatrical purposes rather than any legitimate reason. Basically, all they've done is create new reporting requirements that do little to nothing to either prevent fraud or clarify a company's actual financial position."
There have always been audits. The effectiveness of audits to uncover fraud and clarify financial positions has never been questioned (unless the firm conducting the audit was corrupt). The only difference now with SOX is which companies are subject to audit. Saying that audits dont prevent fraud or provide clearer views of finances is a fairly absurd accusation.
After all, these same companies are conducting similar audits during mergers and acquisitions. What's good for the goose...
Astounding how we, as a country, can have comments like the ones in this thread, and like the ones in TFA, that continue to stand up for deregulation of the financial markets, having less accountability, requiring less transparency, while the entire system is collapsing precisely because of a lack or regulation, accountability, and transparency.
You all are standing in the lobby of a skyscraper that is collapsing, preaching to the screaming people who are frantically running out the doors that 'this is exactly why we should enforce less standards when we build skyscrapers!' Everyone is looking at you like you are the retarded maniac that you probably are.
*Gasp* an internal control audit, you say!? Why, that doesn't make any sense... that a publically traded company (whose business model relies on their business partners, who are private companies, remaining financially solvent) should require those private companies to attain attestation to the effectiveness of their own internal controls? How dare they. That just sounds, so... so...
Responsible!
The whip is for the daily grind, the chair is when you need to spice things up and are feeling particularly Ballmer-esque.
We'll see how bright they are then...
you are far more coherent over here than at our other favorite site. why so schizophrenious?
I know a guy who works on this tech, they can already fit in a cell phone. It's just not affordable. He tells me as the price of the lasers comes down, it will become commonplace to have a projector in your cell phone. I think he anticipated 2010...
Your search - "sarah palin" - did not match any documents.
"It is quite extraordinary to find a fossil landscape preserved over such a vast area; and we are talking about an area the size of [the British city of] Bristol."
Without the edit, I may have thought it was a reference to someone else...
Cough, Cough.
*Continues innocent whistling*
What a complete non-answer. Your reliance on flimsy "necessary steps" is exactly why the industry is dealing with these problems right now. What is necessary? If I'm transporting disks with your data on it, does it have to be a secured armored vehicle, or is a lock box enough? Can the guy carrying it be a convicted felon, or a minimum wage security guard? If I have your data on my laptop, does it have to be encrypted. Is an 56 bit DES algo enough or does it have to be the most modern encryption scheme available? Who sets these rules and are they enforced only after data loss ( or are there periodic audits?
The credit card industry has identified similar problems of responsibility in its business process and implemented a standard that companies have to comply with if they want to avoid being responsible for major losses (PCI). A good example of private industry trying to solve a problem without government regulation (albeit setup mostly so the few credit card companies can push financial losses back down to the merchants and vendors).
FCC is asserting authority over Internet Providers, or, put another way, the people who control the resources that the public relies on. Completely different than asserting authority over the content of usage of the internet. In fact, the FCC appears to be specifically positioning itself out of having to deal with questions of content. It's almost like they want to have 'neutrality'.. seems like I've heard that word used somewhere recently...
Not sure how this is propaganda? The summary and articles are reporting facts, and it's interesting to consider, since this is some of the first reporting ever done on the subject of an active "cyberfront" of a currently waging (albeit de-escalating) real war.
Dell has removed the top line of function keys and tied them as alts to the number row, which should allow them to have slightly more space in the keyboard region and hopefully make for a more pleasant typing experience. I know Wind users and some EeePC users complain about cramped keyboards.
Battery life/cost is absolutely the key issue for me, though.
Of course then the dual cores will start coming out later in the year, but I doubt I can wait until then, especially at these prices.
and I'm all out of catchphrases.
From the PDF of the letter in question:
"Please note that nothing in these recommendations should b e construed as a recommendation to change the current House rules and regulations governing the content of official communications."
This is an attempt to deal with technical issues and update existing House rules to keep up with technology. There's a lot of FUD in the article summary and in TFA.
You seem to be operating under the notion that companies install CCTV systems to protect victims of crimes that occur on company property.
This, however, is business and not altruism. Businesses need CCTV to protect themselves from prosecution and to ease the insurance claims process. For example, they need to know that some guy in a hoodie ran up to that old lady, threw her on to the ground and ran off, not that she slipped on the wet surface left by an employee. They definitely care about that. The identity of the attacker? Not so much. So the expenses surrounding the recording and storage of high-resolution images is simply overkill for the company's needs.
Oh, brilliant! Users were almost universally disappointed with Vista's inability to live up to its hardware support claims, so why not ride that train right through Ubuntu's face?
I mean, come on, folks. Microsoft could have setup 5 computers that would have run Vista flawlessly as well. As my links pointed out above, claiming that Ubuntu (or Vista) supports almost everything you throw at it is not "telling the truth". It is just another irresponsible claim made by overzealous writers and marketers that would prefer to use some nice fuzzy language to breeze over an issue, rather than actually stop and address it.
- "Lying, like the Microsoft people did about Vista is a huge mistake but no one said everything works - that's a commercial software thing."
- "Ubuntu 8.4 remains one of the best desktop distributions for many good reasons: it works with almost any hardware you throw at it"
Linux to Infoworld: please leave the ridiculous hardware support claims to Microsoft. Vista drivers should make the Vaporware top 10 list, Ubuntu has never made any claims such as the one you just did, primarily because it isn't true.
I sincerely enjoy the Linux experience and appreciate the community, but this statement is positively absurd. Ubuntu's own help files contain extensive lists of wireless cards that have a big fat "No" listed under the "Works out of the box" column. And that's just wireless cards.
One of the primary reasons that the average person abandons Linux is the frustration caused by these types of misleading claims. Somebody says, "Hey, virtually everything works out of the box!" and they think... wow, well, I buy my stuff at top retailers from top brands, surely then my stuff is supported.
Unfortunately for them, their stuff may not work at all, or may work partially. Lots of gotchas for Video cards, scanners.. the list goes on and on. Nobody is well served by making statements that indicate anything except that hardware support is still a major obstacle for the adoption of Linux on the desktop.
We can't afford the lobbyists required to get it changed.
I think you meant Freemasons, not stonemasons, unless you are cursing HP for their conspiracies to create beautiful sculptures and pretty stone engravings.
If I were them, I'd be very careful about jaywalking, cramping my wheels to the curb, and making sure my mattress tags were intact. It's called a shitlist; an idea not entirely unfamiliar to TPB admins, I'm sure.
I paid for that right when I made the initial purchase.
We're apparently not even nerdy enough to properly capitalize NASA in the story headline.
Be that as it may, I think I should be able to mod you down as "Bitching About Use of 'Hacker'". Give it up already.