I am sorry, but if you want to attract top talent, you need to pay top money. "enough" isn't enough.
You are very arrogant if you believe that your company is so special that people will want to work there over other companies just because you pay "enough"
I GUARANTEE you will have all the qualified candidates you want if you start offering 2X the salary that you are offering right now.
Oh, you are not willing to do that? Well, then be satisfied with hiring two people a month because that is all you are going to attract with what you are paying.
Let me get this straight. So you are not denying the paying dividend would NOT stop the company from cooking the books. But you are arguing that it would limit the duration/amount involved.
Very interesting argument except that coporate credit is readily available. Even if it would divert some of the cash flow to the dividends, they can always borrow more (even if they had to disguise it through subsidiaries). It still does not solve the problem of motivation - i.e. there are millions to be gained by the execs by cooking the books.
And many many companies do not pay ANY dividends (most tech companies) to begin with.
[Quote]You can't pay out a dividend every year if your profits are all generated by shifting debt around.[/Quote]
That is a gross over-simplification how the problems SOX is trying prevent.
As long as I have cash-flow, I can easily pay out dividend and STILL cook the books. It is not like Enrons and Worldcoms of the cooked the books for decades, it was for a limited time period (10 years). As long as I have enough cash-flow I can easily cover the dividends required. As matter of fact both Worldcom and Enron payed dividends while they were cooking the books.
The problem is that there is a HUGE payoffs for executives if they can show short-term progress. Paying dividends have no effect other than to give even more motivation for the executives to cook the books (since they own significant stock holdings).
I checked your post and I cannot say whether you are not a Google fanboi, but you definitely have anti-MS bent.
Not that that is really that unique around here, but it does strongly suggest that you would take Google's side on anything involving Google and MS.
... you can't predict the future of America if Al Gore had won. Perhaps instead of dumping our money into the war, we'd be dumping it on further social security and medicare waste, and imposing draconian environmental laws to curb greenhouse gases, economy be damned.
What he means is that employees as a whole are in the building 10AM and 6PM. But that means that there are a lot of people who come in at 7AM and leave by 6PM and others who come in by 10AM and leave by 9PM. 10AM and 6PM is when you expect "everyone" to be at work, does not preclude people working 10 to 12 hours a day.
Seriously, if you do not have an HDTV, MCE or any PC PVR is not for you as PC don't work well with RF or video out. Yes, this means that PC PVR is not for vast majority of people. But I think everyone already realizes that.
Funny. I thought being a model student was about going to school to learn. I don't care about the GPA. They haven't been into any kind of (serious) trouble prior, they go to school, behave (more or less) and then go home. IMHO, a model student does NOT mean straight A's, although the two tend to go hand-in-hand, that is no guarantee.
That would just make him/her a good student, but not necessarily a "model" student. The #1 priority for a student is to learn, and the best existing guage of how good of a learning he/she is GPA (may not be perfect, but that's the best we have). If you are not exceptional in GPA, I don't know how you can label a student "model".
I really resent this "everybody is special" mentality. If you are a model, you should be exceptional. Being average (and what you describe would have been true for majority of the kids in my high school) is NOT MODEL BEHAVIOR!!!
Look, Giselle is a model because her hotness is off the chart. A girl next door may be cute, but she is certainly not in the same league.
If the seller does not disclose both facts (that it is a modded 360 and it is exiled from Live), I believe that's sufficient fodder for a lawsuit.
Yes, you can sue the seller. But you won't have any grounds to sue MS or Xbox Live.
Back to the first case: aside from getting out of the suit funds sufficient to buy a new 360, what recourse does this notional plaintiff have?
Why should MS refund you for doing something that they were clear on what the consequences were and you did it anyway? You modded the box out of free-will, nobody forced you to do it. Xbox Live has ALWAYS been clear about banning modded Xboxes. So why should MS eat the cost for your willful violation?
First, you need to step a way from that pipe, get sober and calm down.
Second, if you actually listened to yourself, then you would realize how ridiculous your argument is. There is a clear contract when you sign up for the Xbox Live service. It says, if you mod your box, you are not eligible for the service. Case closed.
For a comparison, if you buy a car and you make a modification that is not authorized by the manufacturer, your warranty is null and void. And that is a rule that has been tested many times in the court of law.
Let me see. I can pay $1.99 a week to watch a show in horrendously low quality 480P or I can record NBC HD programming at 1080i over the air for free and I can skip all commercials. Oh, and I can collect the season and watch them whenever I want.
Seriously, this doesn't make any sense. Why pay for something when you can get it for free with MUCH better quality? TV is not like music. The Network content is available freely over the air. Why pay for something that is already free?
Do you repeat everything that insurance company tells you? You are bit naive if you believe the insurance premium costs are related to how many lawsuits are filed against doctors.
Studies after studies have proven that the malpractice premiums rise and fall with the bond prices (which makes perfect sense since that is how the insurance companies who write the policy finances the insurance). Rate of lawsuits or the reward amount has almost no affect on the rates.
I am going to have to deduct some mods from you for being too logical for a/. post.
You have to remember, when it come to "high-end" audio, logic has no place. "High-end" audio lives by a very simple rule - more expensive the gadget, the better - it does not matter if makes sense or if it really even make things better (because it is all about psychology and not physics), the cost of the gadget is what matters.
You are ignoring the data storage requirements for a typical home in a near future.
I have music, video, recorded TV programs, pictures, document, etc. that eat up a couple of terrabytes of data. Having them spread among 4 or 5 PC's and Laptop is not practical. I have a dedicated home file server with replication among several PC's for vital docs and pictures.
Trying to get all of that to work with reasonable speed with 54Mbs pipe is not realistic. And I don't want to tear up all the drywall to retro fit the house with wirings.
The 802.11 N is really going to make it easier to manage all the content in my house.
... but I suspect that Apple has agreements in place with the major labels to the effect that all music sold through the iTMS will have the same DRM, regardless of where it comes from.
I suspect this, because if I was a DRM-loving music label, sitting on top of a whole lot of content that Apple really wanted, it's one of the conditions that I would insist on as an absolute Well, I HAVE worked at an on-line music distribution company (Not Apple, but a pretty significant one) and I can tell you that no such restriction exists. Labels will approve/disapprove a particular DRM solution, but they do not have the authority to tell you you must use the same DRM for everyone else (because everyone else want their own control).
Usually what happens is that there are one or two labels who are REALLY strict (say, Universal) and for the sake of simplicity everyone else gets the same treatment. It is really done for the benefit of the distribution company than the labels (one consistent process is ALWAYS better/simpler than multiples).
There are plenty of small independents who don't care about DRM, but their catalog is so small (both in number and popularity) that it is not practical to design something just for them.
So if you are looking to blame someone, the blame here lies with Apple, not the labels.
If Jobs wanted to get rid of DRM, he can do it today. He is the biggest stock holder for Disney now and he holds tremendous amount of influence. If he really wanted to he can offer ABC shows and Disney movies without DRM on iTunes tomorrow.
While FairPlay only deals with download purchases, WMDRM not only handles purchased downnloads, but subscription downloads as well.
And while it is true that the number of "purchases" by iTunes dwarfs that of any other music services, if you count the number of subscription downloads, the numbers are much much closer.
Not to mention than subscription DRM is much harder problem than the straight purchase download DRM.
There is only one reason Apple is not licensing FairPlay - to protect its vast market share in portable music device sales.
Thank you.
Don't you think that your above post made a much better argument against the grandparent post?
25 seconds for 1000 isn't too bad, especially for a web e-mail.
Why are you making this more complicated than it really is?
Just go to your Inbox. Click to get the next set of emails on your page. How long did it take before you saw the refreshed list? How long does it take to see first 1000 emails?
I don't care how they are doing it, I just wanna know how long it takes to see the next list.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked, people who have 401k's have their money in Mutual Funds, which means the fund manager gets to vote on corporate votes, not you.
Second, most public companies have A class and B class shares where A class votes FAR outweigh B class votes. Guess which class shares you have...
The playing field is fixed and it is fixed for those in power and have money.
I would have to agree with her description that people who believe that way are nothing more than ugly and greedy goblins.
You are very arrogant if you believe that your company is so special that people will want to work there over other companies just because you pay "enough"
I GUARANTEE you will have all the qualified candidates you want if you start offering 2X the salary that you are offering right now.
Oh, you are not willing to do that? Well, then be satisfied with hiring two people a month because that is all you are going to attract with what you are paying.
Hmmm...
Let me get this straight. So you are not denying the paying dividend would NOT stop the company from cooking the books. But you are arguing that it would limit the duration/amount involved.
Very interesting argument except that coporate credit is readily available. Even if it would divert some of the cash flow to the dividends, they can always borrow more (even if they had to disguise it through subsidiaries). It still does not solve the problem of motivation - i.e. there are millions to be gained by the execs by cooking the books.
And many many companies do not pay ANY dividends (most tech companies) to begin with.
[Quote]You can't pay out a dividend every year if your profits are all generated by shifting debt around.[/Quote]
That is a gross over-simplification how the problems SOX is trying prevent.
As long as I have cash-flow, I can easily pay out dividend and STILL cook the books. It is not like Enrons and Worldcoms of the cooked the books for decades, it was for a limited time period (10 years). As long as I have enough cash-flow I can easily cover the dividends required. As matter of fact both Worldcom and Enron payed dividends while they were cooking the books.
The problem is that there is a HUGE payoffs for executives if they can show short-term progress. Paying dividends have no effect other than to give even more motivation for the executives to cook the books (since they own significant stock holdings).
I checked your post and I cannot say whether you are not a Google fanboi, but you definitely have anti-MS bent. Not that that is really that unique around here, but it does strongly suggest that you would take Google's side on anything involving Google and MS.
Only we could have been so lucky...
What he means is that employees as a whole are in the building 10AM and 6PM. But that means that there are a lot of people who come in at 7AM and leave by 6PM and others who come in by 10AM and leave by 9PM. 10AM and 6PM is when you expect "everyone" to be at work, does not preclude people working 10 to 12 hours a day.
Seriously, if you do not have an HDTV, MCE or any PC PVR is not for you as PC don't work well with RF or video out. Yes, this means that PC PVR is not for vast majority of people. But I think everyone already realizes that.
That would just make him/her a good student, but not necessarily a "model" student. The #1 priority for a student is to learn, and the best existing guage of how good of a learning he/she is GPA (may not be perfect, but that's the best we have). If you are not exceptional in GPA, I don't know how you can label a student "model".
I really resent this "everybody is special" mentality. If you are a model, you should be exceptional. Being average (and what you describe would have been true for majority of the kids in my high school) is NOT MODEL BEHAVIOR!!!
Look, Giselle is a model because her hotness is off the chart. A girl next door may be cute, but she is certainly not in the same league.
Yes, you can sue the seller. But you won't have any grounds to sue MS or Xbox Live.
Why should MS refund you for doing something that they were clear on what the consequences were and you did it anyway? You modded the box out of free-will, nobody forced you to do it. Xbox Live has ALWAYS been clear about banning modded Xboxes. So why should MS eat the cost for your willful violation?
First, you need to step a way from that pipe, get sober and calm down.
Second, if you actually listened to yourself, then you would realize how ridiculous your argument is. There is a clear contract when you sign up for the Xbox Live service. It says, if you mod your box, you are not eligible for the service. Case closed.
For a comparison, if you buy a car and you make a modification that is not authorized by the manufacturer, your warranty is null and void. And that is a rule that has been tested many times in the court of law.
Good luck trying to get a lawyer.
Let me see. I can pay $1.99 a week to watch a show in horrendously low quality 480P or I can record NBC HD programming at 1080i over the air for free and I can skip all commercials. Oh, and I can collect the season and watch them whenever I want.
Seriously, this doesn't make any sense. Why pay for something when you can get it for free with MUCH better quality? TV is not like music. The Network content is available freely over the air. Why pay for something that is already free?
It is a crime that GP has informative mod and the parent does not...
Let me try...
If a real rape is be equivalent to 10 Libraries of Congress, a virtual rape is like getting your library card stolen.
Do you repeat everything that insurance company tells you? You are bit naive if you believe the insurance premium costs are related to how many lawsuits are filed against doctors.
w ww.centerjd.org/air/StableLosses.pdf+malpractice+i nsurance+premium+bond+price+relationship&hl=en&ct= clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=opera
Studies after studies have proven that the malpractice premiums rise and fall with the bond prices (which makes perfect sense since that is how the insurance companies who write the policy finances the insurance). Rate of lawsuits or the reward amount has almost no affect on the rates.
Here is a good paper on the subject:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:KzbwRNSjmH0J:
I am going to have to deduct some mods from you for being too logical for a /. post.
You have to remember, when it come to "high-end" audio, logic has no place. "High-end" audio lives by a very simple rule - more expensive the gadget, the better - it does not matter if makes sense or if it really even make things better (because it is all about psychology and not physics), the cost of the gadget is what matters.
Nobody ever plans for a $1 billion lawsuit against them.
I don't care how rich the company is.
I have music, video, recorded TV programs, pictures, document, etc. that eat up a couple of terrabytes of data. Having them spread among 4 or 5 PC's and Laptop is not practical. I have a dedicated home file server with replication among several PC's for vital docs and pictures.
Trying to get all of that to work with reasonable speed with 54Mbs pipe is not realistic. And I don't want to tear up all the drywall to retro fit the house with wirings.
The 802.11 N is really going to make it easier to manage all the content in my house.
... but I suspect that Apple has agreements in place with the major labels to the effect that all music sold through the iTMS will have the same DRM, regardless of where it comes from.I suspect this, because if I was a DRM-loving music label, sitting on top of a whole lot of content that Apple really wanted, it's one of the conditions that I would insist on as an absolute Well, I HAVE worked at an on-line music distribution company (Not Apple, but a pretty significant one) and I can tell you that no such restriction exists. Labels will approve/disapprove a particular DRM solution, but they do not have the authority to tell you you must use the same DRM for everyone else (because everyone else want their own control).
Usually what happens is that there are one or two labels who are REALLY strict (say, Universal) and for the sake of simplicity everyone else gets the same treatment. It is really done for the benefit of the distribution company than the labels (one consistent process is ALWAYS better/simpler than multiples).
There are plenty of small independents who don't care about DRM, but their catalog is so small (both in number and popularity) that it is not practical to design something just for them.
So if you are looking to blame someone, the blame here lies with Apple, not the labels.
I call BS.
If Jobs wanted to get rid of DRM, he can do it today. He is the biggest stock holder for Disney now and he holds tremendous amount of influence. If he really wanted to he can offer ABC shows and Disney movies without DRM on iTunes tomorrow.
But he isn't.
Because he is BS'er.
Mmmmm... Coconut oil scented space capsules...
You are not comparing apples to apples.
While FairPlay only deals with download purchases, WMDRM not only handles purchased downnloads, but subscription downloads as well.
And while it is true that the number of "purchases" by iTunes dwarfs that of any other music services, if you count the number of subscription downloads, the numbers are much much closer.
Not to mention than subscription DRM is much harder problem than the straight purchase download DRM.
There is only one reason Apple is not licensing FairPlay - to protect its vast market share in portable music device sales.
Thank you. Don't you think that your above post made a much better argument against the grandparent post? 25 seconds for 1000 isn't too bad, especially for a web e-mail.
Why are you making this more complicated than it really is?
Just go to your Inbox. Click to get the next set of emails on your page. How long did it take before you saw the refreshed list? How long does it take to see first 1000 emails?
I don't care how they are doing it, I just wanna know how long it takes to see the next list.