A lot of posters here could save time editing their messages in emacs and calling M-x spook a few times.
For example: jihad AK-47 explosion Cocaine Waco, Texas North Korea Khaddafi Kennedy Saddam Hussein security Legion of Doom quiche Delta Force Clinton Serbian. I'm not too sure about "quiche", but everything else seems consistent.
Yeah, that's the ticket... I'll just carry lots of ammonium nitrate and water with me wherever I go. That will be the easiest nickel I ever saved, and it will only cost me a buck or two!
Here's some quotes that provide a much better factual detail of what he did:
After Corel's results were released in September 1997, the average closing price of Corel stock over the next month was $5.57 - almost $3 below the $8.47 average price Cowpland had received when he sold in August.
This suggests Cowpland made $7 million more than he would have by selling when he did, rather than after the results were released.
The stock sale represented almost one-third of Cowpland's 7.9 million shares he owned in the company.
>> I don't get how you call year six a jackpot. You've accrued 31 units of debt, and even after year six you're *still* 12 units in debt, call it 15 with interest on the debt.
Well, OK, you're right: in year 6 we're turning a strong profit, but the total balance is still a loss. However, if you expand the "etc" in my table out a couple of years though, your total balance is still a big gain. Optimistic? Yes, but that's the nature of the public's valuation of RHAT (and LCPBB).
Strictly speaking, there is no interest on the debt (remember, I'm Bob Young and this is spare change for me). I'm not taking out a loan, but there is the "opportunity cost" of not investing that money somewhere else (like FCOJ futures). Also, if I raise money via an IPO or a venture capital arrangement, there's no interest either - the investors are not loaning me money, they're buying part of my company.
A company can operate at a loss for a while, as long as there is a reasonable expectation for profits in the future.
Simple example: I'm Bob Young, I have $1 billion dollars in my pocket, and I want to start a company for my hot new product, Linux Cabbage Patch Beanie Babies. I anticipate that my expenses will be $10 million the first year, and grow at 10% per year as my company grows. Also, I anticipate that my revenue will be $1 million the first year, and will grow at 100% per year as my hot new product catches on.
(Excuse the ugly formatting on this table - I hope you get the idea): Year Expenses Revenue Profit 1..... 10..... 1..... -9 2..... 11..... 2..... -9 3..... 12..... 4..... -8 4..... 13..... 8..... -5 5..... 14..... 16.... +2 (woo hoo!) 6..... 15..... 32.... +17 (jackpot!) etc.
Now, suppose I'm not Bob Young, and I only have $10 million in my pocket. Based on the above numbers, I'm bankrupt after year 2. So, I need to find investors (either one big one, or lots of little ones) who believe that these LCPBBs are as hot a product as I think they are, and will finance this loss in the short term in order to reap profits in the long term. A corporate merger would give me one big investor - an IPO gives me lots of little ones.
No, it is not a requirement that companies have to eventually file an IPO. There are many companies out there that are privately held (not publicly traded).
A public offering is basically the sale of ownership of a portion of the company - this allows RHAT to receive a bunch of $$$ to finance their continued growth (which they're going to definitely need, as we'll see later). The other option is to NOT file an IPO, and continue to finance their growth expenses from their tiny current revenue stream.
Investors are willing to pay a huge premium now for two reasons: #1, based on the revenue growth rates (i.e. 95% per year), this company COULD be making a ton of money 5-10 years from now, and #2 they read all about it on Slashdot (OK, maybe not).
Why does RHAT need such aggressive growth? Well, 5-10 years from now, their business model indicates that they will be primarily a services company (remember, the base product is free). So, they don't make money selling millions of copies of RHAT linux (which one person with a CD burner could do in their basement). Rather, they make money providing support and customization services for millions of copies of RHAT linux (which requires thousands of service provider gurus worldwide). Without very aggressive expansion, they can't achieve that.
Note the cycle here - RHAT needs $$$ to continue to grow, and investors only value RHAT primarily on the growth it displays (for future returns). So, if they can't continue to display astounding growth quarter after quarter, the stock goes in the tank. That's why announcements like these are important - even though the company is losing money, the revenue stream is demonstrating growth.
I think the legal accountability starts when: a) you recognize that the site you are linking to contains illegal material, and... b) you intentionally link to it anyways.
Here's a more down-to-earth example: suppose my neighbor has a big ol' house with a beautiful garden. He also happens to be the neighborhood fence.
If I don't know that, and I tell my friends that they should really visit his place to check out his lovely petunias, I've done nothing wrong. However, if I do know the score, and I tell people that I can hook them up with a great deal on a linux laptop (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)... there's a pretty good case for aiding and abetting.
Let me preface this by saying that I don't know much about GA...
This is an interesting explanation, but in this case you've really just described a brute-force breadth first search. Shouldn't GA produce something better?
For example, you could apply this described approach to a travelling salesman problem, but it doesn't seem any better than just enumerating all of the cases and picking the best one (assuming you've got a few billion computers running for approximately forever, give or take a few seconds).
Case in point: it is probably not possible to write a free high performance audio/video compression codec, because all the basic principles have been patented.
Well, that's kind of the point of the "non-obvious" clause. Many of the ideas that are considered routine now, were not considered at all twenty years ago. Within the next ten years, there WILL be a new basic principle in this area of technology (I just don't know what it is yet...). The person or group who does come up with it deserves some level of protection for the invention that they have devised.
Hey, good argument... using your reasoning... it seems that most of the victims of these stories are women, so I guess it is also "proof positive" that women are less computer literate than men!
Since most of the world uses Windows to run their PC, it isn't too surprising that Microsoft gets a bit more than a passing mention here.
The worst case fine is $250,000. The best case damage done is $2,500. You could just as easily argue that $250,000 in damage was done (hey we don't know how many millions of people got his stuff yet, do we?), and that he might only get a $2,500 slap on the wrist. Hardly seems fair that the punishment is only 1% of the crime.
People who actually do the stealing, and who actively distribute the ill-gotten gains, are prosecuted more harshly that someone who happens to be in possession of something stolen (they may not even know it). Also, people who do it a lot, are prosecuted more harshly than people who do it once.
So, in answer to your question: its a matter of degree. If you, or your "friends and families", are enabling thousands of people to help themselves to hundreds of different illegally obtained software titles (by hosting an FTP site for it all), you should be in jail or working off a giant fine.
In the worst case you describe, stealing a car amounts to a writeoff (say, $20,000), and a "big hassle" for one person.
Stealing software may seem more indirect, but it can have much wider ranging impacts. There are literally billions of dollars stolen per year in this manner - just because the impact is spread over many people (i.e. the programmers who wrote it who are losing $$$ out of their pocket), doesn't make it better. Hey, the impact of the $20,000 writeoff (assuming its insured, and the insurance company has to pay for it) is only 2 cents for each of the million or so clients of that insurance company. So, by your logic, its really no worse than stealing a mojo from all of 'em.
A single website or FTP site can result in 1000's of illegal downloads, so it would be pretty easy to exceed the cost of a single car theft by an order of magnitude.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of posters here could save time editing their messages in emacs and calling M-x spook a few times.
For example: jihad AK-47 explosion Cocaine Waco, Texas North Korea Khaddafi Kennedy
Saddam Hussein security Legion of Doom quiche Delta Force Clinton
Serbian. I'm not too sure about "quiche", but everything else seems consistent.
Yeah, that's the ticket... I'll just carry lots of ammonium nitrate and water with me wherever I go. That will be the easiest nickel I ever saved, and it will only cost me a buck or two!
Since this is a big ol' Canadian brouhaha, try the CBC for more details:
http://www.cbcnews.cbcHere's some quotes that provide a much better factual detail of what he did:
After Corel's results were released in September 1997, the average closing price of Corel stock over the next month was $5.57 - almost $3 below the $8.47 average price Cowpland had received when he sold in August.
This suggests Cowpland made $7 million more than he would have by selling when he did, rather than after the results were released.
The stock sale represented almost one-third of Cowpland's 7.9 million shares he owned in the company.
I believe you can short a stock 30 days after IPO.
>> I don't get how you call year six a jackpot. You've accrued 31 units of debt, and even after year six you're *still* 12 units in debt, call it 15 with interest on the debt.
Well, OK, you're right: in year 6 we're turning a strong profit, but the total balance is still a loss. However, if you expand the "etc" in my table out a couple of years though, your total balance is still a big gain. Optimistic? Yes, but that's the nature of the public's valuation of RHAT (and LCPBB).
Strictly speaking, there is no interest on the debt (remember, I'm Bob Young and this is spare change for me). I'm not taking out a loan, but there is the "opportunity cost" of not investing that money somewhere else (like FCOJ futures). Also, if I raise money via an IPO or a venture capital arrangement, there's no interest either - the investors are not loaning me money, they're buying part of my company.
A company can operate at a loss for a while, as long as there is a reasonable expectation for profits in the future.
Simple example: I'm Bob Young, I have $1 billion dollars in my pocket, and I want to start a company for my hot new product, Linux Cabbage Patch Beanie Babies. I anticipate that my expenses will be $10 million the first year, and grow at 10% per year as my company grows. Also, I anticipate that my revenue will be $1 million the first year, and will grow at 100% per year as my hot new product catches on.
(Excuse the ugly formatting on this table - I hope you get the idea):
Year Expenses Revenue Profit
1..... 10..... 1..... -9
2..... 11..... 2..... -9
3..... 12..... 4..... -8
4..... 13..... 8..... -5
5..... 14..... 16.... +2 (woo hoo!)
6..... 15..... 32.... +17 (jackpot!)
etc.
Now, suppose I'm not Bob Young, and I only have $10 million in my pocket. Based on the above numbers, I'm bankrupt after year 2. So, I need to find investors (either one big one, or lots of little ones) who believe that these LCPBBs are as hot a product as I think they are, and will finance this loss in the short term in order to reap profits in the long term. A corporate merger would give me one big investor - an IPO gives me lots of little ones.
No, it is not a requirement that companies have to eventually file an IPO. There are many companies out there that are privately held (not publicly traded).
A public offering is basically the sale of ownership of a portion of the company - this allows RHAT to receive a bunch of $$$ to finance their continued growth (which they're going to definitely need, as we'll see later). The other option is to NOT file an IPO, and continue to finance their growth expenses from their tiny current revenue stream.
Investors are willing to pay a huge premium now for two reasons: #1, based on the revenue growth rates (i.e. 95% per year), this company COULD be making a ton of money 5-10 years from now, and #2 they read all about it on Slashdot (OK, maybe not).
Why does RHAT need such aggressive growth? Well, 5-10 years from now, their business model indicates that they will be primarily a services company (remember, the base product is free). So, they don't make money selling millions of copies of RHAT linux (which one person with a CD burner could do in their basement). Rather, they make money providing support and customization services for millions of copies of RHAT linux (which requires thousands of service provider gurus worldwide). Without very aggressive expansion, they can't achieve that.
Note the cycle here - RHAT needs $$$ to continue to grow, and investors only value RHAT primarily on the growth it displays (for future returns). So, if they can't continue to display astounding growth quarter after quarter, the stock goes in the tank. That's why announcements like these are important - even though the company is losing money, the revenue stream is demonstrating growth.
> exactly where does legal accountability stop?
I think the legal accountability starts when:
a) you recognize that the site you are linking to contains illegal material, and...
b) you intentionally link to it anyways.
Here's a more down-to-earth example: suppose my neighbor has a big ol' house with a beautiful garden. He also happens to be the neighborhood fence.
If I don't know that, and I tell my friends that they should really visit his place to check out his lovely petunias, I've done nothing wrong. However, if I do know the score, and I tell people that I can hook them up with a great deal on a linux laptop (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)... there's a pretty good case for aiding and abetting.
Let me preface this by saying that I don't know much about GA...
This is an interesting explanation, but in this case you've really just described a brute-force breadth first search. Shouldn't GA produce something better?
For example, you could apply this described approach to a travelling salesman problem, but it doesn't seem any better than just enumerating all of the cases and picking the best one (assuming you've got a few billion computers running for approximately forever, give or take a few seconds).
>>... a big error message popped up.
So, that's the big advantage of 64 bit architecture - easy-to-read dialog boxes!
Well, that's kind of the point of the "non-obvious" clause. Many of the ideas that are considered routine now, were not considered at all twenty years ago. Within the next ten years, there WILL be a new basic principle in this area of technology (I just don't know what it is yet...). The person or group who does come up with it deserves some level of protection for the invention that they have devised.
Hey, good argument... using your reasoning... it seems that most of the victims of these stories are women, so I guess it is also "proof positive" that women are less computer literate than men!
Since most of the world uses Windows to run their PC, it isn't too surprising that Microsoft gets a bit more than a passing mention here.
So is Microsoft. Right on.
The worst case fine is $250,000. The best case damage done is $2,500. You could just as easily argue that $250,000 in damage was done (hey we don't know how many millions of people got his stuff yet, do we?), and that he might only get a $2,500 slap on the wrist. Hardly seems fair that the punishment is only 1% of the crime.
People who actually do the stealing, and who actively distribute the ill-gotten gains, are prosecuted more harshly that someone who happens to be in possession of something stolen (they may not even know it). Also, people who do it a lot, are prosecuted more harshly than people who do it once.
So, in answer to your question: its a matter of degree. If you, or your "friends and families", are enabling thousands of people to help themselves to hundreds of different illegally obtained software titles (by hosting an FTP site for it all), you should be in jail or working off a giant fine.
In the worst case you describe, stealing a car amounts to a writeoff (say, $20,000), and a "big hassle" for one person.
Stealing software may seem more indirect, but it can have much wider ranging impacts. There are literally billions of dollars stolen per year in this manner - just because the impact is spread over many people (i.e. the programmers who wrote it who are losing $$$ out of their pocket), doesn't make it better. Hey, the impact of the $20,000 writeoff (assuming its insured, and the insurance company has to pay for it) is only 2 cents for each of the million or so clients of that insurance company. So, by your logic, its really no worse than stealing a mojo from all of 'em.
A single website or FTP site can result in 1000's of illegal downloads, so it would be pretty easy to exceed the cost of a single car theft by an order of magnitude.