For that to work you need a bank to issue American Depository Receipts for the stock. The bank (Bank of New York most commonly) buys a certain number of shares and then issues shares on the OTC market in the US representing the underlying foreign shares.
For example, if you want to own 0992.hk (Lenovo), you can not easily do so directly in a US brokerage account. However, you can own the American Depository shares which represent 20 underlying shares on the Hong Kong market. These depository shares trade on the Over the Counter market (quoted on the pink sheets) as LNVGY (.pk for pinksheets).
Some sponsored ADRs actually trade on established exchanges like the NYSE. For example, Sony has American Depository shares which represent their common stock trading on the NYSE as SNE. Hitachi does the same thing as HIT.
Whether you can buy a foreign issue (or an ADR representing the foreign issue) in a local brokerage account depends mostly on whether the company has taken steps to create an ADR or whether there is enough interest to create an underwriting profit for a bank to create an ADR.
There is no indication that an ADR (trading either on the OTC market or on the NYSE or other established exchange) will be created for the Trolltech common stock. If it is not, your only option is to use a brokerage which lets you directly buy and hold foreign stocks on foreign exchanges. Such an account is usually considerably more expensive than your typical discount brokerage account.
Country A can't spy on its own citizens (legally), but country B can (because they are "foreigners"). Country B can't spy on its own citizens (legally), but country A can (because they are "foreigners"). Gee, I wonder how they'll solve that problem?
You know, this system used to be called Echelon. It was a survellience system allegedly used to spy domestically by having other countries do the dirty work. Supposedly it worked (or works) by evaluating pattern checks on unlikely phrases that enemies of the state might use. I think a few other countries admitted to being part of Echelon, but the US never made a statement on it.
Bread and circuses have led us to total apathy. I asked an acquantance of mine if he was worried about it. He responded: "Are they tracking cell phones?"
Secrecy is no longer important. Sure, people will make noise about it. Maybe a tenth of them will be sincere enough to really rally people against this prison that is building up around us.
Why should I take special care to "check out the Postal Service?"
What exactly does this bring to the table? People who had or have an interest in the band probably saw the video in 2003 when it was released. It has NOTHING to do with the software being advertised.
Perhaps if the video were mentioned in the article it would be more accepta--OH WAIT! What article? All we have is a link to the home page of this project. Okay, it's open source, and it's probably cool. Fine. Submit an article, or at least a summary that doesn't suck. This awful writeup belongs more on digg than on slashdot, in my opinion.
It is indeed sad in a way. The Baloghs sold the FM license with a plan to go online-only . At the end of the day, funding wasn't there and advertisers wouldn't get behind the new format, and 97x "died." The day after they officially signed off forever, liasons for two anonymous investors approached them and offered a million or so to keep the station going until a business model could be found. Two months after that they came back online. They stretched the capital almost two years, and now they're looking for subscribers to survive (there was a story here on/. not too long ago).
The format is still "Modern Rock" which is a pretty wide classification. They also have a vintage channel (same subscription) which plays some of the older stuff that you probably heard when you were listening. You can find some of the quirkier cool old stuff on the vintage channel like "The Sweater" by Meryn Cadell. You can find the last 10 songs played on the vintage channel here.
They still use a radio like format with live djs, and they still take requests.
If you go to WOXY.com, you can listen to low bitrate streams for either channel if you would like to check it out without subscribing. Of course, the quality is worse than FM this way (because with FM you got noise, with MP3 you get tinny artifacts), but you can get an idea of the programming.
I used to listen to them on the radio, and I was in Cincinnati when they actually signed off (they no longer have a terrestrial broadcast). Now I'm living in Europe and listening over the internet. Its much cleaerer than it ever was in the FM days:D.
For me, the high quality streams are definitely worth the subscription.
Scott McNealy is hardly a "randroid" considering his love of government contracts. From the WSJ article on the issue: "Mr. McNealy said he would remain active with the company, calling on customers such as the federal government"
In many cases, it isn't that the money shouldn't be spent, just who should decide on the spending. One should be skeptical of how well bureaucracies can dole out our money, or whether in some cases we would be better off doing it ourselves individually or in smaller more maneagable cooperatives.
I think this is a pretty good example of something that doesn't need to be a public service. We'll see in a few years whether the quality is adequate for the price and whether this is sustainable and beneficial for the town.
Firstly, I don't call publically funded roads free. I call them public roads.
Secondly, a group of 28,000 people can get together and pay for wireless together. I just think we should be honest about it when we talk about it for the same reason I don't call roads free.
When you have more than a handful of people it helps to have consistent definitions so that people can honestly decide whether or not they value a certain proposal and whether or not they would like to fund it as a community.
Only time will tell whether this will have a net economic benefit for their local economy. Maybe it will, but I suspect that the annual cost will be increasing as time passes and that the quality will reflect what is being paid (see: hiccups).
My concern was with the semantics (we can't have honest discussions without honest language), not with whether it is a sound decision to implement. I don't call public roads free. I think if we're going to have communities banding together to do this then they should be called "public," not free or gratis. The viewpoint I expressed was not against cooperative wifi, it was against calling it by the wrong name.
Incidentally, roads are generally paid for with taxes on automobile fuel. So, if you don't have a car, you might not actually be paying for the roads. At least not as much as the people who use them.
Free as in at least two million dollars in capital outlay and $400k annually (and they're probably underestimating). Free as in: people using it don't necessarily pay for it, and people paying for it don't necessarily use it.
Maybe I should rephrase and say that I don't support legislation for or against. And that is the whole point. Thank you for your troll. I've had a good time with it.
I'll look into your alegations about the EFF, an organization which is concerned with a whole host of things, only one of which is DRM. Now that this is firmly put to rest I will be ignoring your comments so long as they are posted anonymously.
This is because most anti-DRM organizations are not proposing legislation, but rather joining me in my cause of dissuading public officials from legislating and mandating DRM.
This is what many media companies would like you to believe. You do not purchase a license to the content when you buy a CD or DVD. You purchase the media, and a copy of the content.
Now, what you can do with this copy is often restricted in certain ways by copyright law. For there to be a license, there would have to be elements of a contract:
Subject Matter,
Consideration,
Legality,
and a few others.
Well, with CDs and DVDs, we're missing at least two elements. Firstly, most CDs don't have any sort of agreement printed in them. Secondly, if there were, what would be the consideration? You already purchased the CD! This is the fundemental problem with click-through licenses (even if courts haven't recognized this yet).
With online services like iTMS, this is probably a little different. But the fact remains that for most purchases, you are in fact purchasing a copy of the content. Common law recognizes exceptions from the restrictions in copyright statute, exceptions that are lost when other statutes enforce digital restrictions.
I have read that you are in favor of DRM. I do not like having my freedom to tinker with technology and enjoy media I have purchased hampered by government intervention and paternalism.
Please let DRM succeed or die on its own merits -- on market forces alone.
From a concerned citizen who both authors and enjoys media.
Firstly, I never said that his work for How Stuff Works lends any credence to his work with "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" I was merely giving context for people might not recognize the name.
With regard to your argument (and disregarding your ad hominem attack), it is true that this is not the most rigorous discussion of religion (in this case Christianity) and the possibility that a supernatural force can (or does) intervene in the matters of humankind. However, it is an interesting take on the subject and a starting-point for discussion.
My rationale for the recommendation is that it is a topic that is too sensitive to even broach in circles outside of forums like this one. You are right though that as a critique of Christianity (as opposed to the existence of a personal god), it is weak in a number of regards.
Marshall Brain of How Stuff Works fame wrote a little book called Why Won't God Heal Amputees? (The Most Important Question We Can Ask about God).
Chapter Five deals with the title question and is especially pertinent to this discussion. There are some minor flaws with the conclusions drawn, but I have written the author about these and he intends to address them; they don't really detract from the conclusion.
A highly recommended read. A little wordy at times, but that is because it is trying to be conversational with a potentially hostile audience (I think).
Slashdot Mirror
For that to work you need a bank to issue American Depository Receipts for the stock. The bank (Bank of New York most commonly) buys a certain number of shares and then issues shares on the OTC market in the US representing the underlying foreign shares.
For example, if you want to own 0992.hk (Lenovo), you can not easily do so directly in a US brokerage account. However, you can own the American Depository shares which represent 20 underlying shares on the Hong Kong market. These depository shares trade on the Over the Counter market (quoted on the pink sheets) as LNVGY (.pk for pinksheets).
Some sponsored ADRs actually trade on established exchanges like the NYSE. For example, Sony has American Depository shares which represent their common stock trading on the NYSE as SNE. Hitachi does the same thing as HIT.
Whether you can buy a foreign issue (or an ADR representing the foreign issue) in a local brokerage account depends mostly on whether the company has taken steps to create an ADR or whether there is enough interest to create an underwriting profit for a bank to create an ADR.
There is no indication that an ADR (trading either on the OTC market or on the NYSE or other established exchange) will be created for the Trolltech common stock. If it is not, your only option is to use a brokerage which lets you directly buy and hold foreign stocks on foreign exchanges. Such an account is usually considerably more expensive than your typical discount brokerage account.
Bread and circuses have led us to total apathy. I asked an acquantance of mine if he was worried about it. He responded: "Are they tracking cell phones?"
Secrecy is no longer important. Sure, people will make noise about it. Maybe a tenth of them will be sincere enough to really rally people against this prison that is building up around us.
You guys forgot to mention that Cute Overload won the People's Voice Webby.
Come on!
My bad, too! It's a great video. I was just a tad on edge when I posted :/. No slight against your project, it looks really cool.
Best,
Paul
Fair enough. I still didn't like it, but perhaps it was more the tone than the content that turned me off.
Why should I take special care to "check out the Postal Service?"
What exactly does this bring to the table? People who had or have an interest in the band probably saw the video in 2003 when it was released. It has NOTHING to do with the software being advertised.
Perhaps if the video were mentioned in the article it would be more accepta--OH WAIT! What article? All we have is a link to the home page of this project. Okay, it's open source, and it's probably cool. Fine. Submit an article, or at least a summary that doesn't suck. This awful writeup belongs more on digg than on slashdot, in my opinion.
It is indeed sad in a way. The Baloghs sold the FM license with a plan to go online-only . At the end of the day, funding wasn't there and advertisers wouldn't get behind the new format, and 97x "died." The day after they officially signed off forever, liasons for two anonymous investors approached them and offered a million or so to keep the station going until a business model could be found. Two months after that they came back online. They stretched the capital almost two years, and now they're looking for subscribers to survive (there was a story here on /. not too long ago).
The format is still "Modern Rock" which is a pretty wide classification. They also have a vintage channel (same subscription) which plays some of the older stuff that you probably heard when you were listening. You can find some of the quirkier cool old stuff on the vintage channel like "The Sweater" by Meryn Cadell. You can find the last 10 songs played on the vintage channel here.
They still use a radio like format with live djs, and they still take requests.
If you go to WOXY.com, you can listen to low bitrate streams for either channel if you would like to check it out without subscribing. Of course, the quality is worse than FM this way (because with FM you got noise, with MP3 you get tinny artifacts), but you can get an idea of the programming.
I used to listen to them on the radio, and I was in Cincinnati when they actually signed off (they no longer have a terrestrial broadcast). Now I'm living in Europe and listening over the internet. Its much cleaerer than it ever was in the FM days :D.
For me, the high quality streams are definitely worth the subscription.
How about yourself?
Scott McNealy is hardly a "randroid" considering his love of government contracts. From the WSJ article on the issue: "Mr. McNealy said he would remain active with the company, calling on customers such as the federal government"
Put another way:
The People Directly > The People Abstracted.
In many cases, it isn't that the money shouldn't be spent, just who should decide on the spending. One should be skeptical of how well bureaucracies can dole out our money, or whether in some cases we would be better off doing it ourselves individually or in smaller more maneagable cooperatives.
I think this is a pretty good example of something that doesn't need to be a public service. We'll see in a few years whether the quality is adequate for the price and whether this is sustainable and beneficial for the town.
Firstly, I don't call publically funded roads free. I call them public roads. Secondly, a group of 28,000 people can get together and pay for wireless together. I just think we should be honest about it when we talk about it for the same reason I don't call roads free. When you have more than a handful of people it helps to have consistent definitions so that people can honestly decide whether or not they value a certain proposal and whether or not they would like to fund it as a community. Only time will tell whether this will have a net economic benefit for their local economy. Maybe it will, but I suspect that the annual cost will be increasing as time passes and that the quality will reflect what is being paid (see: hiccups).
Or, it distorts the perception of capital costs and causes the misallocation of capital to the funding of inefficient businesses.
My concern was with the semantics (we can't have honest discussions without honest language), not with whether it is a sound decision to implement. I don't call public roads free. I think if we're going to have communities banding together to do this then they should be called "public," not free or gratis. The viewpoint I expressed was not against cooperative wifi, it was against calling it by the wrong name.
Incidentally, roads are generally paid for with taxes on automobile fuel. So, if you don't have a car, you might not actually be paying for the roads. At least not as much as the people who use them.
Free as in Beer? More like...
Free as in at least two million dollars in capital outlay and $400k annually (and they're probably underestimating). Free as in: people using it don't necessarily pay for it, and people paying for it don't necessarily use it.
That's not a definition of free I can accept.
Might I recommend the tag "plusfivefunny"
Dear Deb,
Maybe I should rephrase and say that I don't support legislation for or against. And that is the whole point. Thank you for your troll. I've had a good time with it.
I'll look into your alegations about the EFF, an organization which is concerned with a whole host of things, only one of which is DRM. Now that this is firmly put to rest I will be ignoring your comments so long as they are posted anonymously.
Paul
PS: you meant "your excuse."
Hi Deb,
This is because most anti-DRM organizations are not proposing legislation, but rather joining me in my cause of dissuading public officials from legislating and mandating DRM.
Sincerely,
Paul
Now, what you can do with this copy is often restricted in certain ways by copyright law. For there to be a license, there would have to be elements of a contract:
Well, with CDs and DVDs, we're missing at least two elements. Firstly, most CDs don't have any sort of agreement printed in them. Secondly, if there were, what would be the consideration? You already purchased the CD! This is the fundemental problem with click-through licenses (even if courts haven't recognized this yet).
With online services like iTMS, this is probably a little different. But the fact remains that for most purchases, you are in fact purchasing a copy of the content. Common law recognizes exceptions from the restrictions in copyright statute, exceptions that are lost when other statutes enforce digital restrictions.
-Paul
I just sent an email to Commissioner Tate:
Dear Commissioner Tate,
I have read that you are in favor of DRM. I do not like having my freedom to tinker with technology and enjoy media I have purchased hampered by government intervention and paternalism.
Please let DRM succeed or die on its own merits -- on market forces alone.
From a concerned citizen who both authors and enjoys media.
Firstly, I never said that his work for How Stuff Works lends any credence to his work with "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" I was merely giving context for people might not recognize the name.
With regard to your argument (and disregarding your ad hominem attack), it is true that this is not the most rigorous discussion of religion (in this case Christianity) and the possibility that a supernatural force can (or does) intervene in the matters of humankind. However, it is an interesting take on the subject and a starting-point for discussion.
My rationale for the recommendation is that it is a topic that is too sensitive to even broach in circles outside of forums like this one. You are right though that as a critique of Christianity (as opposed to the existence of a personal god), it is weak in a number of regards.
Then you should volunteer for the prayer circle experiment. Okay, I know you were joking.
In essence, that there is no supreme power intervening on this earth in accordance with the wishes and prayers of people.
Marshall Brain of How Stuff Works fame wrote a little book called Why Won't God Heal Amputees? (The Most Important Question We Can Ask about God).
Chapter Five deals with the title question and is especially pertinent to this discussion. There are some minor flaws with the conclusions drawn, but I have written the author about these and he intends to address them; they don't really detract from the conclusion.
A highly recommended read. A little wordy at times, but that is because it is trying to be conversational with a potentially hostile audience (I think).
I suspect he wouldn't be allowed to call it anything like Mandrake or Mandriva due to trademark issues.