Even if it is only subject to capital gains taxes, that takes a bite too
Not super critical to the debate, but proceeds from NQSO's (the type of stock option that the low-level employees generally get) are taxable as ordinary income. If they cash out now and leave, the options will be taxable at 38%, plus a bit over a percent for Medicare. The Social Security hit will be negated, but so will be the option to write off mortgage interest this year.
Just the same, there are worse problems to have:).
What you really want to do is tell people about the rock, but tell them it'll just a be a near miss, a million miles or some such. Nothing to worry about.
Or, send out a huge mass mailing:
From: V|agra4U Subject: News Flash: Asteroid to Hit Earth in 4 Days!
It has been confirmed that a large Asteroid is going to hit the earth in only 4 days! You've always wanted to try it, so ACT NOW AND WE CAN GET V|AGRA TO YOUR HOME WITH TIME TO SPARE!
People will double-take, and think they're being scammed (which would, in fact, be true, but not in the way they think). Then they'd assume future reports of same were just other people being scammed, and they just might go about their normal business...
One potential problem: this could be used as a tool to debilitate free newsletters, e.g.:
Organization A publishes a newsletter. Group B disagrees with Org A's position, or they're just jerks. They get all the Group B members to sign up for Org A's newsletter. The next mailing goes out, and all the Group B people protest. Org A is suddenly hurting for cash.
It is an interesting idea, but you've got to be careful about unintended consequences. I'm sure there are others; this is just the one that popped into my head.
Well, he is still chairman of the board, the most prominent spokesman (note who delivers the keynote speech at Comdex for example), and the chief visionary (that's what's meant by "software architect" in this context). Plus, of course, the largest stockholder.
More importantly, last time I checked (which was a fair bit after the promotion), Steve (CEO) still reported to Bill (Chairman) on the company's internal org chart.
And then there's those third-world nations, fumbling around with chmod and tr while half their country is dying of AIDS...
Wow, the way you're throwing the gauntlet down, it's obvious that you've personally contributed more money to public health in the third world than Bill Gates has. Impressive. Keep it up. Every little $1 billion helps.
No worries on that front. MSFT options, when sold, are considered ordinary income by the IRS. The options were granted, not purchased, so there's nothing to match against for a loss. So he'll be paying his ~40% (remember to include Medicare) just like everyone else.
Yes, I know, I've participated in this plan myself (but it's okay, i'm long gone).
The thing is, libel is not an "arcane internet law." It has been illegal to injure someone's reputation with false statements both verbally (slander) and in all forms of print (libel), since the country was founded. What this is saying is that blogs are not uniquely exempt from these laws. A blog is the same as a pamphlet; you still have all the latitude you need to make a truthful argument.
Just make sure to take a look at the pictures. These are racks for patch panels, which are not very deep. You'll need to modify them somewhat to get the depth you'll need for a server. So, you still need to be handy, although this could be a good start.
My inference is that you did not request payment in advance, and you felt (and feel) taken advantage of. Everyone's advice re: specifying fees and/or telling her to F.O.A.D. are accurate, but you probably already knew that. My guess is you're just not comfortable with saying no. I've had this problem before, and I have some books to suggest (pick your own store, I'm not getting paid for this!)
Unlimited Power by Anthony Robbins. My personal favorite.
Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury. The classic negotiation book.
Start With No by Jim Camp. I haven't read this one, actually, but it sounds very on-topic.
I suppose that's a factor, but most of the non-secure software in common use today was written during a mad expansion, not a recession. At that point, the issue wasn't cutting costs, it was getting products out the door before your competitors did, and left you in the dust. Ultimately, app security comes down to the company's priority list. That, in turn, tends to be driven by the priority list of the market as a whole. Most people didn't care at all about security until very recently.
If the people care about security now, you can bet the companies that succeed over the next decade will be the ones that satisfy that demand.
I really don't think the blame can be placed on the programmers here. Software development organizations get from their programmers what they measure and reward.
I used to work at a software house, and I noticed our code always adapted to whatever the organization cared about. When they cared about timeliness, we gave it to them, but the bug count went up. When they cared about a low defect rate, we gave it to them, but the volume of code (completed feature set) went down. When they cared about maintainability too, they got that, but app performance suffered.
Most competent programmers can probably make meaningful conributions to secure apps, especially if the efforts are led by good architects. Not everyone has to be the best. The only thing is, whoever is commissioning the software has to rank security (which includes a low defect rate) above timeliness and feature count. If that's done, most programmers can rise to the challenge.
Don't blame the programers. They're just adapting to their environment. They do have to put food on the table after all, so they'll do what their companies value.
She sells anti-spam software via spam? Isn't there a name for the practice of selling protection for a problem you create yourself? Racketeering, anyone?
Any chance someone could bring her up on a RICO violation?
Bummer. The SQL project I'm most closely affiliated with is a restaurant point-of-sale system. Our closest competitor? Squirrel. Squirrel doesn't even use SQL.
So I can't say "squirrel" for MS-SQL. I can't be 1337. Waah!:)
Good point, but I couldn't help but play devil's advocate to it, if only because I love a good debate:)
Why do people buy TiVo? Why are most people satisfied with it post-purchase? Simple. It does what the manufacturer claims, and people make the value judgment on that basis.
You happen to know the TiVo is actually a Linux-based computer, and that it's technically capable of more than the manufacturer claims. And yes, I agree you should be allowed to mod it, and that the TiVo company shouldn't undo your mods once they've been made, except with your permission. But I submit it's not fair to dismiss the satisfied customers as clueless. They weren't ripped off. They got exactly what the manufacturer claimed, and that's all they wanted from that particular device.
Personally, I don't own a TiVo, but I've been considering getting one (or some other PVR perhaps). If I get one, I won't bother modding it. Why? I'm not clueless; quite the contrary. It's just that I watch less than 1 hour of TV per week on average, and I don't really need that much functionality. I'd rather do something else with my time. Different priorities, that's all.
Does she believe that CO2 emissions will lead to global warming? If so, then she does believe in modeling. Think about it: a prediction of climate change inherently implies a model of some sort. If she believes in global warming, I'd suspect she's concerned that the new modeling project might not match her existing belief (or that of whatever vested interest she's representing in these negotiations). Sounds dodgy.
What if she doesn't believe in global warming; i.e. she's one of those "the jury is still out" people. Same issue: if she's concerned about the research, she's most likely concerned that it will come out with more evidence of something she doesn't want proven. Sounds like an ostrich. Again, the question of vested interest is relevant.
Two bottom lines: 1) Refining and testing our climate models can't hurt, especially if we treat the results as mere evidence rather than gospel. And 2) Ask yourself what she's afraid of.
Not everyone fills out the forms, and some people don't receive them (some new houses, for example, or "off the record" divisions of houses into apartments, etc. aren't on the address database). So the Census Department follows up the form campaign with a door-to-door campaign to try to fill in the holes.
But there's also a lot of promotional mail that YOU OPTED INTO whether you realize it or not.
If that's what you tell yourself so you can sleep at night, I can understand, but you are still unequivocally wrong. Opt-in requires specific positive action on the part of the recipient-to-be. An example would be adding yourself to a listserv, or checking a box that says something to the effect of "I would like to receive promotions from our marketing partners."
If that box is checked by default, we're no longer dealing with opt-in, we're dealing with neglect to opt-out. Ditto for failing to read (or comprehend!) the 147th paragraph of legalese in some intentionally obfuscated privacy statement.
Bottom line: if the customer didn't specifically request mail, (s)he didn't opt-in. Any promotional email that follows is, as you say legal, but it's still spam.
Spam is "unsolicited commercial email." Solicitation is a positive action. End of story. So, do you know what spam is?
Monopoly isn't a behavior, though; there's no such thing as "acting like a monopoly." Monopoly (in the legal sense as we're talking about here) is simply a fact, decided by the court. There is no specific definition of what constitutes a monopoly, and different courts will apply the label under different circumstances.
All I'm saying is that, since monopoly is subjective, a company can't truly self-assess its monopoly status. If monopolies have to play by different rules, it's only fair to be specific about when those different rules kick in. Without an objective test, only an adjudication can be specific enough. And only after said adjudication should the new rules apply.
Yeah yeah, grumble grumble, but you'd be glad for that process if it was you the politicians (remember AG also stands for "aspiring governor") were intent on destroying *cough* Sklyarov *cough*.
Whether MS is "really" a monopoly or not is irrelevant; as a matter of law, it is. As such, it can no longer sign exclusive agreements.
However...
Microsoft was not born a monopoly. One day, it became one. Which day was that, exactly? This is critical, because it was only on that day that it had to clean up its act.
Since we're talking law here, the "conventional wisdom" test (gee, everybody knows they're a monopoly) is probably not sufficient (viz. reasonable minds still differ on that assessment). For that matter, being served with the accusation by the Justice Department was probably not sufficient; after all, they do err sometimes, which is why we go through the trouble of court trials.
Only once the findings of fact were published could MS reasonably be held to that standard. Otherwise, we're in the realm of ex post facto, which is not merely unconstitutional; it's incredibly scary.
What changes need to be made (i.e. settlement or judgment; however it comes out) is for the courts to decide, and they're working on it. Just keep in mind, though, that the patterns of behavior in question can reasonably (I'm not saying unequivocally, just reasonably) be demonstrated not to have been known to be wrong at the time — they hadn't been officially adjudicated a monopoly yet. Does MS need to change? Well, yes, apparently and legally. In fact, changes have been made, but it's still unclear what exactly needs to be done (note even the prosecuting attorneys can't even agree amongst themselves). Do they need to be drawn and quartered? Maybe when some reasonable (unbiased, and the prosecution is by definition not unbiased!) minds decide on what exactly the new rules should be, maybe MS should at least get a chance to work within them? Maybe, just maybe, it would be a Good Thing to give them the benefit of defining the new boundaries, and give them at least one shot to live within them?
Just a thought. Somebody's got to question the lynch mob.
Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X.IV?
Even if it is only subject to capital gains taxes, that takes a bite too
Not super critical to the debate, but proceeds from NQSO's (the type of stock option that the low-level employees generally get) are taxable as ordinary income. If they cash out now and leave, the options will be taxable at 38%, plus a bit over a percent for Medicare. The Social Security hit will be negated, but so will be the option to write off mortgage interest this year.
Just the same, there are worse problems to have :).
What you really want to do is tell people about the rock, but tell them it'll just a be a near miss, a million miles or some such. Nothing to worry about.
Or, send out a huge mass mailing:
From: V|agra4U
Subject: News Flash: Asteroid to Hit Earth in 4 Days!
It has been confirmed that a large Asteroid is going to hit the earth in only 4 days! You've always wanted to try it, so ACT NOW AND WE CAN GET V|AGRA TO YOUR HOME WITH TIME TO SPARE!
People will double-take, and think they're being scammed (which would, in fact, be true, but not in the way they think). Then they'd assume future reports of same were just other people being scammed, and they just might go about their normal business...
My taxes went way down since my job got outsourced!
One potential problem: this could be used as a tool to debilitate free newsletters, e.g.:
Organization A publishes a newsletter. Group B disagrees with Org A's position, or they're just jerks. They get all the Group B members to sign up for Org A's newsletter. The next mailing goes out, and all the Group B people protest. Org A is suddenly hurting for cash.
It is an interesting idea, but you've got to be careful about unintended consequences. I'm sure there are others; this is just the one that popped into my head.
Well, he is still chairman of the board, the most prominent spokesman (note who delivers the keynote speech at Comdex for example), and the chief visionary (that's what's meant by "software architect" in this context). Plus, of course, the largest stockholder.
More importantly, last time I checked (which was a fair bit after the promotion), Steve (CEO) still reported to Bill (Chairman) on the company's internal org chart.
And then there's those third-world nations, fumbling around with chmod and tr while half their country is dying of AIDS...
Wow, the way you're throwing the gauntlet down, it's obvious that you've personally contributed more money to public health in the third world than Bill Gates has. Impressive. Keep it up. Every little $1 billion helps.
No worries on that front. MSFT options, when sold, are considered ordinary income by the IRS. The options were granted, not purchased, so there's nothing to match against for a loss. So he'll be paying his ~40% (remember to include Medicare) just like everyone else.
Yes, I know, I've participated in this plan myself (but it's okay, i'm long gone).
The thing is, libel is not an "arcane internet law." It has been illegal to injure someone's reputation with false statements both verbally (slander) and in all forms of print (libel), since the country was founded. What this is saying is that blogs are not uniquely exempt from these laws. A blog is the same as a pamphlet; you still have all the latitude you need to make a truthful argument.
Just make sure to take a look at the pictures. These are racks for patch panels, which are not very deep. You'll need to modify them somewhat to get the depth you'll need for a server. So, you still need to be handy, although this could be a good start.
- Unlimited Power by Anthony Robbins. My personal favorite.
- Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury. The classic negotiation book.
- Start With No by Jim Camp. I haven't read this one, actually, but it sounds very on-topic.
Good luck. Find your strength.If the people care about security now, you can bet the companies that succeed over the next decade will be the ones that satisfy that demand.
I used to work at a software house, and I noticed our code always adapted to whatever the organization cared about. When they cared about timeliness, we gave it to them, but the bug count went up. When they cared about a low defect rate, we gave it to them, but the volume of code (completed feature set) went down. When they cared about maintainability too, they got that, but app performance suffered.
Most competent programmers can probably make meaningful conributions to secure apps, especially if the efforts are led by good architects. Not everyone has to be the best. The only thing is, whoever is commissioning the software has to rank security (which includes a low defect rate) above timeliness and feature count. If that's done, most programmers can rise to the challenge.
Don't blame the programers. They're just adapting to their environment. They do have to put food on the table after all, so they'll do what their companies value.
Any chance someone could bring her up on a RICO violation?
So I can't say "squirrel" for MS-SQL. I can't be 1337. Waah! :)
Easy to guess, but how many of you could actually type it in?
They should try Saddam's password. You never know!
Why do people buy TiVo? Why are most people satisfied with it post-purchase? Simple. It does what the manufacturer claims, and people make the value judgment on that basis.
You happen to know the TiVo is actually a Linux-based computer, and that it's technically capable of more than the manufacturer claims. And yes, I agree you should be allowed to mod it, and that the TiVo company shouldn't undo your mods once they've been made, except with your permission. But I submit it's not fair to dismiss the satisfied customers as clueless. They weren't ripped off. They got exactly what the manufacturer claimed, and that's all they wanted from that particular device.
Personally, I don't own a TiVo, but I've been considering getting one (or some other PVR perhaps). If I get one, I won't bother modding it. Why? I'm not clueless; quite the contrary. It's just that I watch less than 1 hour of TV per week on average, and I don't really need that much functionality. I'd rather do something else with my time. Different priorities, that's all.
Does she believe that CO2 emissions will lead to global warming? If so, then she does believe in modeling. Think about it: a prediction of climate change inherently implies a model of some sort. If she believes in global warming, I'd suspect she's concerned that the new modeling project might not match her existing belief (or that of whatever vested interest she's representing in these negotiations). Sounds dodgy.
What if she doesn't believe in global warming; i.e. she's one of those "the jury is still out" people. Same issue: if she's concerned about the research, she's most likely concerned that it will come out with more evidence of something she doesn't want proven. Sounds like an ostrich. Again, the question of vested interest is relevant.
Two bottom lines: 1) Refining and testing our climate models can't hurt, especially if we treat the results as mere evidence rather than gospel. And 2) Ask yourself what she's afraid of.
Not everyone fills out the forms, and some people don't receive them (some new houses, for example, or "off the record" divisions of houses into apartments, etc. aren't on the address database). So the Census Department follows up the form campaign with a door-to-door campaign to try to fill in the holes.
I wonder how many of those "responses" are variants of "take me off this list." They are marketing guys after all ;)
So the current version is oh-ess-eks-point-one? ;)
If that's what you tell yourself so you can sleep at night, I can understand, but you are still unequivocally wrong. Opt-in requires specific positive action on the part of the recipient-to-be. An example would be adding yourself to a listserv, or checking a box that says something to the effect of "I would like to receive promotions from our marketing partners."
If that box is checked by default, we're no longer dealing with opt-in, we're dealing with neglect to opt-out. Ditto for failing to read (or comprehend!) the 147th paragraph of legalese in some intentionally obfuscated privacy statement.
Bottom line: if the customer didn't specifically request mail, (s)he didn't opt-in. Any promotional email that follows is, as you say legal, but it's still spam.
Spam is "unsolicited commercial email." Solicitation is a positive action. End of story. So, do you know what spam is?
All I'm saying is that, since monopoly is subjective, a company can't truly self-assess its monopoly status. If monopolies have to play by different rules, it's only fair to be specific about when those different rules kick in. Without an objective test, only an adjudication can be specific enough. And only after said adjudication should the new rules apply.
Yeah yeah, grumble grumble, but you'd be glad for that process if it was you the politicians (remember AG also stands for "aspiring governor") were intent on destroying *cough* Sklyarov *cough*.
However...
Microsoft was not born a monopoly. One day, it became one. Which day was that, exactly? This is critical, because it was only on that day that it had to clean up its act.
Since we're talking law here, the "conventional wisdom" test (gee, everybody knows they're a monopoly) is probably not sufficient (viz. reasonable minds still differ on that assessment). For that matter, being served with the accusation by the Justice Department was probably not sufficient; after all, they do err sometimes, which is why we go through the trouble of court trials.
Only once the findings of fact were published could MS reasonably be held to that standard. Otherwise, we're in the realm of ex post facto, which is not merely unconstitutional; it's incredibly scary.
What changes need to be made (i.e. settlement or judgment; however it comes out) is for the courts to decide, and they're working on it. Just keep in mind, though, that the patterns of behavior in question can reasonably (I'm not saying unequivocally, just reasonably) be demonstrated not to have been known to be wrong at the time — they hadn't been officially adjudicated a monopoly yet. Does MS need to change? Well, yes, apparently and legally. In fact, changes have been made, but it's still unclear what exactly needs to be done (note even the prosecuting attorneys can't even agree amongst themselves). Do they need to be drawn and quartered? Maybe when some reasonable (unbiased, and the prosecution is by definition not unbiased!) minds decide on what exactly the new rules should be, maybe MS should at least get a chance to work within them? Maybe, just maybe, it would be a Good Thing to give them the benefit of defining the new boundaries, and give them at least one shot to live within them?
Just a thought. Somebody's got to question the lynch mob.