...you're kidding me right? Windows XP and 2000 can both run fine on 128 megs
I guess technically the OS will 'run fine'. However, I was thinking it might be nice to run an application. When the user runs IE they'll soon see how limited 128MB is. We aren't talking users who are going to tweek their boxes or turn off default services, etc.
I'd almost wager that 80% of the people who buy these (or who buy a computer from WalMart in general) are n00bs, and will try returning the devices because 'there's no microsoft word or internet explorer on it'.
Actually, put a 'W' icon linking to Openoffice or AmiWord and a 'E' 'Internet' icon pointing to Firefox and I bet they wouldn't know the difference.
Being a graduating electrical engineer, ham radio operator, and of the female persuasion.... [snip] It really makes you question your role in society...especially when it seems that women are portrayed like idiots or dumb blondes in the media... [snip] I always wished I could have had another woman to look up and admire for their technical achievements.
May I ask how then you feel when there are dozens of posts from people saying "I'd do her!", "Check out the legs!", "Here are pics of her...", "6 beers!", etc? I'm glad you found inspiration in her acheivements, it seems to most around here, shes just T&A.
I assume you own some stocks... at the very least, you probably have a mutual fund with some stock holdings. When was the last time you were asked to vote on employee pay changes? Never, right?
Actually, all the time. I'm always being asked to vote on changes which will increase executive compensation, increase stock options available for employee purchase, and otherwise dilute my shareholder value. It seems like every quarter I get a proxy statement and instructions on voting. Each time one of the questions (other than rubber stamping the board) is on these employee compensation issues.
No thanks, I'll take a nice mirror site over a slow BitTorrent download any day.
In some cases, the p2p concept is not really to benefit you. It is to ease the burden on the hosts. Personally, I love a nice ftp download or even a fast mirror also. However budget and bandwidth might not sustain that. Instead, everyone downloading in a p2p manner can help each other out.
As others have said on DSL/Cable you need to cap your uplink speed. With an assymetrical pipe, all the incoming connections will slow down the handshaking required for the download stream.
It depends on how many shares the Guillemots have though
According to their 2004 financial report, available on the ubisoft website, the Guillemots own around 14-15% of the company. 84-85% is owned by the public. This deal would appear to give EA more ownership than the Guillemots -- of course the financial details are not being disclosed yet. For all we know, it is the Guillemots who are selling to EA (along with some board members). There has been no comment by either company yet.
If no other single stock holder has more than a 20% share then EA votes are enough to control the company.
How do you arrive at this logic? A 20% share is a 20% share. They can vote their 20% votes on company business. They can attempt to persude some other 31% to 'install' hand-picked board of directors or a friendly CEO. Of course, the definition of a hostile takeover is a takeover that is opposed by the target companies 'management' and 'board of directors'. Is this the case?
I'm not sure how approaching someone to purchase a 20% stake is considered by some as a hostile takeover.
As far as employment goes, if you recall previous stories, many developers left Ubisoft to work at EA. In fact, Ubisoft was one of the companies who sued the employees claiming they should not be allowed to work for a competitor in the game industry since they signed a non-compete clause.
In the bigger picture, this consolidation is inevitable and it sucks. With the recent article about the Game Industry overtaking Hollywood, those same business techniques will be used. Expect little innovation. They will do what they think will work without risk (ie; Halo 3, Far Cry 2, WOW 2, Doom 4, expansion packs). Just like the movie/television industry...find a hit with something, cookie cutter it, and sell it until everyone was sick of it a year ago.
Personally, I've never been a fan of EA games - partly because I don't care for the sports genre, but partly because EA's model seems to be; release the same game yearly with some tweaks. ie; 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. It similar to the Intuit/Quicken model. Release to generate a steady revenue stream, not because of innovation.
The King Kong website has been distributing production diary videos and interviews with Director Peter Jackson, et al via torrent for the upcoming movie. http://www.kongisking.net/index.shtml
This sounds like a good idea, until passengers end up watching live TV coverage of the next 9/11 and then start hunting in the plane they are riding in for assumed "terrorists" causing a riot in-flight.
Of course this is violation of the Terms of Service so you are protected:
#
#
Interference with Flight Crew: Do not Disclose any Content that would intimidate a flight crew member or flight attendant aboard an aircraft, interfere with the performance of the duties of the flight crew member or flight attendant or lessen the ability of the flight crew member or flight attendant to perform those duties.
#
Interference with Airplane Operations: Do not Disclose any Content, knowing the information to be false, about an alleged attempt being made or to be made to hijack, bomb or interfere with the operations of an aircraft. http://www.connexionbyboeing.com/index.cfm?p=cbb.t ermsofuse&l=en.US&ec=
I dont think this is very practical. Planes are limited in the power supplied to the seats. Many modern and future laptops draw more power than the plane supplies (or at least the airline allows). Most planes restrict you to 75 watts. So unless you want to use your battery (which has its own limits) you are restricted to how long you can view this. Many airlines also make you remove your battery before you can use power from the plane.
Secondly, does anyone really need live TV via their laptop - it would seem using installed lcd displays is a whole lot easier.
If the government is serious about fixing problems in supposedly secure and sensitive systems, then they should reward not punish people who find holes.
So according to your logic, the 19 hijackers on 9/11/2001 should be rewarded, not punished? If the governemnt and airline industry was serious about fixing problems in in a supposedly secure and sensitive transportation system, then they should reward not punish people who find holes.
Part of the problem with your logic is that you somehow possess a 'crystal ball' that lets you devine a 'harmless hacker' from an intrusion designed to damage. You all you know the 'I'm just trying to get storage for my movies' is a cover story for an espionage assignment. In any case, I don't recall someone approaching NASA and advising them of the hole--he was caught after the fact. In fact there was no altruistic motive here, he was trying to store his warez / pirated movies.
Cable can broadcast what it wants because it is not using the public airwaves / radio spectrum to transmit its content. Therefore the FCC would not have jurisdiction. However, satellite is broadcast through the air so this seems like a double standard. (What country has jurisdiction?) Like the article says, you could not subscribe to the service, but be provided a satellite receiver in a rental car and be 'subjected' to so-called indecent content.
Our legal system is far behind the times when it comes to technology, 'cyberspace', online privacy, etc. I wish todays legal minds were working on those issues instead of dreaming up these far off futuristic scenarioes.
What happens with taxes? It is advantageous for a company not to ever show any profits, this seems like a simple way to reduce your taxable income as far as the IRS is concerned. Most corporations don't pay any taxes anyway, but now this just got easier: "Let's grant everyone a bunch of options that we deem are worth 10 bazillion"?
And herein lies the rub -- the FASB regulations guide the standards by which accountants produce financial reports. The tax regulations are a separate system. For years, these same tech companies who are arguing against expensing stock options on their financial disclosures, have been expensing stock options and reducing tax liability on their IRS filings; in some cases paying no taxes at all.
Enron avoided billions of dollars in taxes by expensing their options on their IRS filings. However, when it came to the financial statements that are used by the investors/shareholders (those quartly/annual reports you get sent), they hid these values.
This seems like the crux of the matter. When a company grants stock options, shouldn't it at that time make sure that it owns a sufficient number of shares so that the option may be honored? Or in other words, are options granted in consideration of issued (and company owned) shares (1), or is it usually the plan to issue them later as needed (therefore diluting share value) (2)?
My understanding of the issue is as follows. First, a company 'registers' shares. A register of shares is not the same as issue of shares. Issuing shared typically go through an IPO (or secondary IPO) process. Second, like the US Treasury, a Corporation can print its own money. It can 'create' more shares. However, just like the Treasury, if you double the amount of shares outstanding, you half the value of those shares already present. Company do this all the time with 'stock splits'.
How does this affect earning? I think this is where it gets tricky. Financial statements dont fully reflect reality - they contain assumptions and estimations. And they are only a snapshot at a single point in time (end of quarter/year). Companies expense all sorts of things - such as 'Goodwill', 'Intangibles', 'Depreciation'. Also, when a financial statement is created, the current 'exchange rate' of international currencies are factored in, even though it isn't a real cost.
I think whole problem here is that companies want to use stock options as 'free money' to attract 'talent'/'management' without the accountability. Its very much like the US Fed Gov't borrowing from the Social Security fund. Its really easy to drop an 'I-Owe-You' note in there and worry about it later
If you compare two companies - one who hires a person and pays them a fixed salary and one who hires a person for a lesser salary but gives them an option to by $50 worth of stock for $10 - shouldn't there be a financial statistics/measure to differentiate the practices of the two companies?
Finally, many times rules come about because of abuse. Stock options have been abused by companies to give exhorbitant bonuses to executives. This gives executives incentive to drive up the stockprice in the shortterm, so that the options can execute before expiration, but not the incentive to build a stronger, longer lasting, sustainable growth policy.
Lastly, I don't see how this rule will affect anything at all since more likely than not companies will just be publishing two numbers - earnings with stock option adjustment and without. Kinda like EBDTA.
That may be true, but that is a good thing.
1) Investors should be able to look at the financial details and see how much liability there is. As an investor, you may want use stock options as a metric about how a company is run. 2) Stocks options are not 'free money'. When a company gives them away, they create a liability to the shareholds and dilute the value of a company. Just like the US Federal Gov't uses financial trickery to move certain expenses 'off budget', options hide the true financial health of a company. 3) Financial reports represent a snapshot in time. Why shouldn't the expense of options be declared in that snapshot. 4) Options are given out too easily because they don't show up on the bottom line. 5) This is truly common sense because you should always err on the side of full disclosure. 6) Most experts agree that this makes sense, they've agreed for a long long time (pre dot com days). The lobby against it has been from people who are more interested in their personal pocket books than the overall health of the financial system.
Actually, it only has to be a licensed electrician (generally) if you are hiring someone to do it. If you do it yourself (or have someone help you for free) it doesn't matter.
Not in this State/County. A permit is required before doing electrical work. Only a licensed electrician is able to pull a permit. There is a 'homeowner' clause, however it requires that you take (and pass) a detailed test which assesses your knowledge of the National Electrical Code 2002.
Mr. Competence, I think I know your brother, 'In'--I work with him.
How about the same UL (and their international equivalents) standards that already keep these same devices from catching fire if accidentally connected to telecoms lines.
You are only looking at half the picture. Its not just the UL listing of the device, but its the installation. While the UL listing helps, building codes (at least in the US) also require that a fully licensed electrician install electrical lines. The local building authority also requires multiple inspections (planning, rough-in, final), as well as collecting tax on the whole process. Do we want installation of Ethernet cabling to require licensed, regulated, and taxed checks and balances? It would seem to me that Power over Ethernet might head us in that direction, especially if the wattage is increased (and perhaps after a fire or electrocution because someone attempts to plug their ethernet cable into their modem jack or their USB port).
Bad analogy. An insecure wireless network is basically saying "here I am!" and blindly following out the orders it is given from anybody who replies.
Is it really that bad of an analogy? If the door was unlocked but had a sign on it that said 'homeowner only' or 'keep out' what about that? If the 'insecure' wireless network was not truly open, but had a 64-bit WEP enabled, isn't that a close analogy?
True, but a rare 'make an example of him' sentence. When I said they do not get 'this level of sentence', I meant proportional to the crime, not absolute length. Andy Fastow was part of a Fraud where he personally gained $80 millions dollars. His scheme ultimately bilked investors (as well as others) out of $70 Billion dollars, ruined thousands, if not tens of thousands peoples lives, contributed to the recession, damaged communities, etc.
In 2002, the US Sentencing Commission increased maximums for white collar crime--only time will tell if the tougher guidelines actually get applied. Somehow I doubt it.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess technically the OS will 'run fine'. However, I was thinking it might be nice to run an application. When the user runs IE they'll soon see how limited 128MB is. We aren't talking users who are going to tweek their boxes or turn off default services, etc.
I'd almost wager that 80% of the people who buy these (or who buy a computer from WalMart in general) are n00bs, and will try returning the devices because 'there's no microsoft word or internet explorer on it'.
Actually, put a 'W' icon linking to Openoffice or AmiWord and a 'E' 'Internet' icon pointing to Firefox and I bet they wouldn't know the difference.
But can it run Windows?
Well, with 128MB of RAM according to the specs, I wouldn't try iy. At least not a recent version of windows.
Being a graduating electrical engineer, ham radio operator, and of the female persuasion....
[snip]
It really makes you question your role in society...especially when it seems that women are portrayed like idiots or dumb blondes in the media...
[snip]
I always wished I could have had another woman to look up and admire for their technical achievements.
May I ask how then you feel when there are dozens of posts from people saying "I'd do her!", "Check out the legs!", "Here are pics of her...", "6 beers!", etc? I'm glad you found inspiration in her acheivements, it seems to most around here, shes just T&A.
I assume you own some stocks... at the very least, you probably have a mutual fund with some stock holdings. When was the last time you were asked to vote on employee pay changes? Never, right?
Actually, all the time. I'm always being asked to vote on changes which will increase executive compensation, increase stock options available for employee purchase, and otherwise dilute my shareholder value. It seems like every quarter I get a proxy statement and instructions on voting. Each time one of the questions (other than rubber stamping the board) is on these employee compensation issues.
No thanks, I'll take a nice mirror site over a slow BitTorrent download any day.
In some cases, the p2p concept is not really to benefit you. It is to ease the burden on the hosts. Personally, I love a nice ftp download or even a fast mirror also. However budget and bandwidth might not sustain that. Instead, everyone downloading in a p2p manner can help each other out.
As others have said on DSL/Cable you need to cap your uplink speed. With an assymetrical pipe, all the incoming connections will slow down the handshaking required for the download stream.
It depends on how many shares the Guillemots have though
According to their 2004 financial report, available on the ubisoft website, the Guillemots own around 14-15% of the company. 84-85% is owned by the public. This deal would appear to give EA more ownership than the Guillemots -- of course the financial details are not being disclosed yet. For all we know, it is the Guillemots who are selling to EA (along with some board members). There has been no comment by either company yet.
If no other single stock holder has more than a 20% share then EA votes are enough to control the company.
How do you arrive at this logic? A 20% share is a 20% share. They can vote their 20% votes on company business. They can attempt to persude some other 31% to 'install' hand-picked board of directors or a friendly CEO. Of course, the definition of a hostile takeover is a takeover that is opposed by the target companies 'management' and 'board of directors'. Is this the case?
I'm not sure how approaching someone to purchase a 20% stake is considered by some as a hostile takeover.
As far as employment goes, if you recall previous stories, many developers left Ubisoft to work at EA. In fact, Ubisoft was one of the companies who sued the employees claiming they should not be allowed to work for a competitor in the game industry since they signed a non-compete clause.
In the bigger picture, this consolidation is inevitable and it sucks. With the recent article about the Game Industry overtaking Hollywood, those same business techniques will be used. Expect little innovation. They will do what they think will work without risk (ie; Halo 3, Far Cry 2, WOW 2, Doom 4, expansion packs). Just like the movie/television industry...find a hit with something, cookie cutter it, and sell it until everyone was sick of it a year ago.
Personally, I've never been a fan of EA games - partly because I don't care for the sports genre, but partly because EA's model seems to be; release the same game yearly with some tweaks. ie; 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. It similar to the Intuit/Quicken model. Release to generate a steady revenue stream, not because of innovation.
The King Kong website has been distributing production diary videos and interviews with Director Peter Jackson, et al via torrent for the upcoming movie.
http://www.kongisking.net/index.shtml
My faith in PC Magazines normally excellent journalism has been shattered. The missed the worst gift of the year...
an SCO Intellectual Property license for the Linux lover in your life.
How will they implement interrupting your viewing pleasure at the height of the show so that the pilot can tell you the weather at 35,000 feet?
This sounds like a good idea, until passengers end up watching live TV coverage of the next 9/11 and then start hunting in the plane they are riding in for assumed "terrorists" causing a riot in-flight.
t ermsofuse&l=en.US&ec=
Of course this is violation of the Terms of Service so you are protected:
# # Interference with Flight Crew: Do not Disclose any Content that would intimidate a flight crew member or flight attendant aboard an aircraft, interfere with the performance of the duties of the flight crew member or flight attendant or lessen the ability of the flight crew member or flight attendant to perform those duties. #
Interference with Airplane Operations: Do not Disclose any Content, knowing the information to be false, about an alleged attempt being made or to be made to hijack, bomb or interfere with the operations of an aircraft.
http://www.connexionbyboeing.com/index.cfm?p=cbb.
My guess is that the TV will be broadcast or multicast, not a dedicated stream per seat. Thus the 4 station limit.
I dont think this is very practical. Planes are limited in the power supplied to the seats. Many modern and future laptops draw more power than the plane supplies (or at least the airline allows). Most planes restrict you to 75 watts. So unless you want to use your battery (which has its own limits) you are restricted to how long you can view this. Many airlines also make you remove your battery before you can use power from the plane.
Secondly, does anyone really need live TV via their laptop - it would seem using installed lcd displays is a whole lot easier.
If the government is serious about fixing problems in supposedly secure and sensitive systems, then they should reward not punish people who find holes.
So according to your logic, the 19 hijackers on 9/11/2001 should be rewarded, not punished? If the governemnt and airline industry was serious about fixing problems in in a supposedly secure and sensitive transportation system, then they should reward not punish people who find holes.
Part of the problem with your logic is that you somehow possess a 'crystal ball' that lets you devine a 'harmless hacker' from an intrusion designed to damage. You all you know the 'I'm just trying to get storage for my movies' is a cover story for an espionage assignment. In any case, I don't recall someone approaching NASA and advising them of the hole--he was caught after the fact. In fact there was no altruistic motive here, he was trying to store his warez / pirated movies.
Cable can broadcast what it wants because it is not using the public airwaves / radio spectrum to transmit its content. Therefore the FCC would not have jurisdiction. However, satellite is broadcast through the air so this seems like a double standard. (What country has jurisdiction?) Like the article says, you could not subscribe to the service, but be provided a satellite receiver in a rental car and be 'subjected' to so-called indecent content.
The ruling seems inconsitant to me.
Our legal system is far behind the times when it comes to technology, 'cyberspace', online privacy, etc. I wish todays legal minds were working on those issues instead of dreaming up these far off futuristic scenarioes.
What happens with taxes? It is advantageous for a company not to ever show any profits, this seems like a simple way to reduce your taxable income as far as the IRS is concerned. Most corporations don't pay any taxes anyway, but now this just got easier: "Let's grant everyone a bunch of options that we deem are worth 10 bazillion"?
And herein lies the rub -- the FASB regulations guide the standards by which accountants produce financial reports. The tax regulations are a separate system. For years, these same tech companies who are arguing against expensing stock options on their financial disclosures, have been expensing stock options and reducing tax liability on their IRS filings; in some cases paying no taxes at all.
Enron avoided billions of dollars in taxes by expensing their options on their IRS filings. However, when it came to the financial statements that are used by the investors/shareholders (those quartly/annual reports you get sent), they hid these values.
This seems like the crux of the matter. When a company grants stock options, shouldn't it at that time make sure that it owns a sufficient number of shares so that the option may be honored? Or in other words, are options granted in consideration of issued (and company owned) shares (1), or is it usually the plan to issue them later as needed (therefore diluting share value) (2)?
My understanding of the issue is as follows. First, a company 'registers' shares. A register of shares is not the same as issue of shares. Issuing shared typically go through an IPO (or secondary IPO) process. Second, like the US Treasury, a Corporation can print its own money. It can 'create' more shares. However, just like the Treasury, if you double the amount of shares outstanding, you half the value of those shares already present. Company do this all the time with 'stock splits'.
How does this affect earning? I think this is where it gets tricky. Financial statements dont fully reflect reality - they contain assumptions and estimations. And they are only a snapshot at a single point in time (end of quarter/year). Companies expense all sorts of things - such as 'Goodwill', 'Intangibles', 'Depreciation'. Also, when a financial statement is created, the current 'exchange rate' of international currencies are factored in, even though it isn't a real cost.
I think whole problem here is that companies want to use stock options as 'free money' to attract 'talent'/'management' without the accountability. Its very much like the US Fed Gov't borrowing from the Social Security fund. Its really easy to drop an 'I-Owe-You' note in there and worry about it later
If you compare two companies - one who hires a person and pays them a fixed salary and one who hires a person for a lesser salary but gives them an option to by $50 worth of stock for $10 - shouldn't there be a financial statistics/measure to differentiate the practices of the two companies?
Finally, many times rules come about because of abuse. Stock options have been abused by companies to give exhorbitant bonuses to executives. This gives executives incentive to drive up the stockprice in the shortterm, so that the options can execute before expiration, but not the incentive to build a stronger, longer lasting, sustainable growth policy.
Lastly, I don't see how this rule will affect anything at all since more likely than not companies will just be publishing two numbers - earnings with stock option adjustment and without. Kinda like EBDTA.
That may be true, but that is a good thing.
1) Investors should be able to look at the financial details and see how much liability there is. As an investor, you may want use stock options as a metric about how a company is run.
2) Stocks options are not 'free money'. When a company gives them away, they create a liability to the shareholds and dilute the value of a company. Just like the US Federal Gov't uses financial trickery to move certain expenses 'off budget', options hide the true financial health of a company.
3) Financial reports represent a snapshot in time. Why shouldn't the expense of options be declared in that snapshot.
4) Options are given out too easily because they don't show up on the bottom line.
5) This is truly common sense because you should always err on the side of full disclosure.
6) Most experts agree that this makes sense, they've agreed for a long long time (pre dot com days). The lobby against it has been from people who are more interested in their personal pocket books than the overall health of the financial system.
Actually, it only has to be a licensed electrician (generally) if you are hiring someone to do it. If you do it yourself (or have someone help you for free) it doesn't matter.
Not in this State/County. A permit is required before doing electrical work. Only a licensed electrician is able to pull a permit. There is a 'homeowner' clause, however it requires that you take (and pass) a detailed test which assesses your knowledge of the National Electrical Code 2002.
Mr. Competence, I think I know your brother, 'In'--I work with him.
How about the same UL (and their international equivalents) standards that already keep these same devices from catching fire if accidentally connected to telecoms lines.
You are only looking at half the picture. Its not just the UL listing of the device, but its the installation. While the UL listing helps, building codes (at least in the US) also require that a fully licensed electrician install electrical lines. The local building authority also requires multiple inspections (planning, rough-in, final), as well as collecting tax on the whole process. Do we want installation of Ethernet cabling to require licensed, regulated, and taxed checks and balances? It would seem to me that Power over Ethernet might head us in that direction, especially if the wattage is increased (and perhaps after a fire or electrocution because someone attempts to plug their ethernet cable into their modem jack or their USB port).
Bad analogy. An insecure wireless network is basically saying "here I am!" and blindly following out the orders it is given from anybody who replies.
Is it really that bad of an analogy? If the door was unlocked but had a sign on it that said 'homeowner only' or 'keep out' what about that? If the 'insecure' wireless network was not truly open, but had a 64-bit WEP enabled, isn't that a close analogy?
Andy Fasto (CFO of Enron) got 10 years.
True, but a rare 'make an example of him' sentence. When I said they do not get 'this level of sentence', I meant proportional to the crime, not absolute length. Andy Fastow was part of a Fraud where he personally gained $80 millions dollars. His scheme ultimately bilked investors (as well as others) out of $70 Billion dollars, ruined thousands, if not tens of thousands peoples lives, contributed to the recession, damaged communities, etc.
In 2002, the US Sentencing Commission increased maximums for white collar crime--only time will tell if the tougher guidelines actually get applied. Somehow I doubt it.