Just because people has know him after he discovered and analized the sony rootkit...
I'll guess from your handle that you may not be a native speaker of English. In which case, allow me to offer some friendly advice - the word you were probably looking for is "analyze", with a "y". "Analize" with an "i" is also a verb meaning...well, something else.
I think you misunderstand me - what they don't have to do is abide by the disclosure requirements in their NYSE listing agreement. Nor do they have to follow the exchange rules on corporate governance, or otherwise meet the minimum standards for listing. Perhaps this French thing has similar requirements, but I'm inclined to seriously doubt it.
Do keep in mind that, contrary to popular belief, buying stock in a company (other than at IPO) sends no money to the company.
Of course, but the advantage to investing in exchange-listed stocks is that the disclosure requirements and SEC filing requirements give potential investors far more information than what is required of delisted or unlisted companies. If you plan to hit the pink sheets, be my guest, but that's not much more than high-stakes gambling, IMO:)
The article does say "he company has vowed to stand by the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and will continue to comply pending their eventual deregistration."
That sounds like a forward-looking statement, which cannot be guaranteed:)
Though I'm sure the European exchange does have its rules...
I'm sure they do too, but US listing rules are just about the toughest in the world. I don't know much about French requirements particularly, but I do know that companies can be perfectly compliant with listing requirements in Frankfurt, and yet still have it be damn near impossible to parse out things like whether or not they're actually profitable. Trivial things like that;)
Just because they're moving off the American stock market, however, doesn't mean Vivendi Universal won't seek, rely on or utilize US investors.
Yeah. The problem for those investors is that Vivendi's reporting and disclosure requirements just got a whole lot looser. Better get a real close look at their books if you're planning on sending any money their way.
Besides the fact that you won't have a clue what you're doing since you'll never have learned anything, if you don't have any desire to do it in the first place, why are you in the field?
The types of people who cheat in their CS courses are likely the types of people who'd cheat regardless of their chosen field. My wife teaches history (on the high school level, though), and there's just been an explosion of plagiarism in the last few years or so - it's just tremendously easy and tempting to CTRL-C CTRL-V some website into your paper.
Of course, what these knuckleheads don't realize is that the same developments that make it easy for them to cheat also make tremendously easy to catch cheaters - there have been course sections where literally half the class has gotten caught with a hand in the cookie jar, and it really, really makes me wonder what the fuck these kids are thinking. Forget about not learning the tools for your career - some of them are bound and determined not to learn a goddamn thing, period.
I was kind of wondering myself if my PIII-700 with a Geforce 2MX would break the 1 fpm barrier. Eh, I'll just put it up and if anyone asks I'll tell 'em they're slides from my last vacation...on Proxycon...or something. Whatever.
Well, not exactly. If the EU is going to be shitting out money like a broken slot machine, it remains for you and I to figure out how we can get a piece of this. I'm certain that, given the proper funding, I can help them solve the technical obstacles before them However, for deeply complicated reasons (it's complicated) much of my research will need to be conducted in places like Bali and the Bahamas and so forth.
Re:My C64 floppy could do that!
on
Scanjet Music
·
· Score: 1
CoCo had color, but I assure you the TRS-80 sure didn't. Hell, the Model I didn't even have lowercase *letters*, unless you replaced the character generator. More here:
Indeed. The extra-funny part is that I really am sitting on some mod points right now, so I actually passed on the chance to moderate this discussion in favor of a throwaway comment, and this is how the CHEESE EATING SURRENDER MONKEYS treat me.
Hey, if I'm gonna be marked a troll, I might as well do something to earn it:)
I'd like to see some honest feedback. Like, "It works great but watch out for when you're running more than n applications." or something like that. Nothing slamming it or being a Fanboy - just honest comments.
Those are the people least likely to respond to this sort of thing, unfortunately. It's a gross generalization, but there's some truth to the suggestion that there are two types who respond to self-selected satisfaction surveys.
A) the unjustifiably happy (read: fanboys), who wouldn't report a problem even if the thing were glowing green, making them sterile, and causing their to hair fall out.
B) the unjustifiably unhappy (read: anal-retentive perfectionists), who complain loudly and vociferously when they find their new toy has some dust on the outside of the case, and why won't the company immediately recall these POS's to address this ridiculous dust-gathering issue?
Normal people are less likely to bother, sad to say, especially if they're generally pretty happy with it except for maybe one or two minor things.
...what conclusion would YOU draw, when the brand new machine that you've had for 4 days, suddenly has a CD-Drive failure, that my CD-burning software is no longer working, and that I'm waiting for a replacement CD-Drive.
My conclusion? After only four days, my first guess would be that it's just a shit drive, and that you got burned by the bathtub curve and poor quality control. If you'd been running it for a year, I'd be a bit more suspicious, but brand-new components can and do fail all by themselves for no apparent reason.
I hadn't heard that, but that's basically what I'm saying - there's gotta be more to the story. It would be quite appalling if not, but I'd like to know if that's all there is, or if there's more.
The Constitution's meaning is not variable. It is a constant, and was meant to be that way from the beginning.
You still don't get it. What happens when you tell people what it means and they don't believe you or agree with you? You may be "right" in some sense, but guess what? The 270,000,000 people who are "wrong" get to have their way, and not the one guy who's "right". You want "right" to carry the day? Better back up and rethink how to persuade people to see things your way, 'cause this ain't it.
Yeah, nice try, you disengenuous bastard. I'm not concerned about myself, you ignorant fuck
Gosh, hard to believe you have a hard time being taken seriously, isn't it?
Grow up, junior. If you can't make a rational argument in a calm fashion, quit wasting my time.
Oh, so the White House has been moved outside the District? I happen to live a half hour away too, and I know that a number of sites have been restricted from time to time, since 9/11.
Screeech go the shifting goalposts. What happened to there being oodles of sites that you can't visit, period? Now we've shifted to "restricted from time to time"? You are aware that some sites in DC were "restricted from time to time" long before 9/11. And I can't help but notice that you can't quite manage to name any of these mysterious sites that you can no longer visit.
Pardon? I don't know the case. Why should I care, anyway?
Because it's the law. Why am I even bothering with this?
Angry and ignorant. Nice combo.
Bullshit. That is completely false, and the fact you say that really explains a lot about you.
No, it's completely true, and the fact that you dismiss it out of hand says to me that you haven't really spent much time thinking about it, so let me give you something to chew on. You can write down all the rights you like, in your fanciest script on the most elegant bit of parchment you can find. But none of it means anything if the people around you don't respect those rights you've declared for yourself. The Constitution is not meaningful to us today because it's under glass in the National Archives, it's meaningful because we, all of us, agree to abide by it. The First Amendment means whatever you can get we, the people, to agree that it means. The Fourth Amendment means whatever we, the people agree it means.
Now you can come at me with all sorts of arguments on natural law, original intent, or whatever you like. But as a practical matter, those arguments carry as much weight as the people around you assign them. As a practical, day to day matter, your rights are as meaningful as the people around you agree they should be. Chew on that, and think about what it means to have a right that nobody else in the world agrees to, abides by, or respects. Then try to think of a better way to persuade them that they should agree to the meanings you want.
I can't give, or vice versa, someone else my plane ticket.
You do what's been done for twenty years now - you go to the ticket counter and exchange it for a ticket in that someone else's name. Really, now.
I am, theoretically, no longer entitled to counsel, or any hearing whatsoever, if I am arrested on suspicion of terrorist activity.
"Theoretically" meaning you're not actually affected by this hypothetical, I suppose. Right.
I can no longer visit various sites in DC.
Yeah, that might work if I wasn't a half-hour from DC and able to verify that personally. The only building I know of that you can no longer tour, post-911, is the FBI building. "Various sites," indeed.
I can no longer peacefully protest near the RNC, except in designated "free speech zones."
You've gotta be kidding me. That kind of thing has been around for decades. The Supreme Court has repeatedly and decisively ruled that reasonable time-and-place restrictions do not offend the Constitution - lucky for you, lest I set up my boombox on the street outside your bedroom window at 3 AM.
I am no longer free from search and seizure without a warrant or probable cause
Terry v Ohio - 1968 or so.
The point is what the government can and cannot do. Government powers are reaching far beyond the bounds set forth in the Constitution.
So you assert, but my copy must have omitted the portion where your opinions on such things are definitive. The Constitution is more social compact that anything else, and it has precisely as much meaning as your friends and neighbors assign to it - you may wish to review the last election to see who they voted for.
Right, although that provision is currently working its way through the courts - my suspicion is that the NSL gag order provision is not long for this world, but we'll see. In any case, my bad.
However, it's also unfair to attack someone who pointed out that if a gag order exists (possible with NSLs), there wouldn't be any confirmation available.
Not necessarily. If the library or ILL staff were served with such a thing, they wouldn't be able to confirm it. Of course, the student would still be able to disclose the details of his interview, if he were so inclined.
Recent revelations of the President's authorization of illegal wiretapping activity do not put credibility on the side of any Federal agency.
If this is the foundation of your argument, it's built on sand. I should hardly have to point out that the legality or illegality of the recently revealed NSA intercepts is very much an open question. Some in congress say it's illegal, the administration says they were conducted in accordance with applicable law - either way, the courts have yet to weigh in, so for you to suggest that they are definitively illegal is not a claim supported by the facts thus far.
One case of the illegal detention of a bus rider in Colorado which the ACLU is working on
Worked. As you may or may not know, the charges were dropped, and the lady in question will not be prosecuted. Given that this is widely considered to be the correct outcome, this hardly seems evidence of creeping totalitarianism.
...a German citizen who was illegally imprisioned by the CIA and flown out of his country...
I assume you're referring to the Khaled Masri case. In which case, the question to you is, illegal under whose law? Certainly not the law of the United States. The Supreme Court is clear on this subject - non-citizens not within the territorial boundaries of the United States are not entitled to the protections of the Constitution. You may certainly argue that the CIA violated local law in snatching him. You may argue that it is an unwise foreign policy to do so. But it is definitely not illegal under US law to do what was done.
...and Cheney's attempts to thwart McCain's efforts to limit torture...
This is how the political process works. While it would be nice if those who disagreed with us - e.g., Dick Cheney - would just shut up and go away, the reality is that the administration has the right to lobby on behalf of legislation it finds favorable, and against legislation it finds disfavorable. You may not agree with them, but it is rather disingenuous to present disagreement as illegitimate in and of itself.
...all combine to demolish any credibility on the part of the government enforcement agencies....Given the events of the past few years, I would tend to accept any story coming from a professor over basic skepticism.
Perhaps it would be wise to avail yourself of the facts before passing judgement. All your prescription does is set you up for manipulation by some other set of folks. Checking your brain at the door is never a good move, even if the folks who appear to agree with you seem like really nice people who only want the best for everyone.
Honestly, it would depend on what they said, and then in turn what the response to *their* statement was - it's hard to be more specific without something specific to work with, sorry.
One thing's for sure, though - the fellow who wrote this article is an absolutely horrible journalist, and being a good journalist isn't exactly a high bar to clear. He really should have done a better job following up with DHS, with the library/ILL personnel, getting a statement from the kid himself on promise of confidentiality, etc. This, as it stands, is worse than nothing at all.
Truthfully, though, the burden of proof is rightfully on the person or persons making the claim. If the professors, or better yet, the student in question, were a little more forthcoming on some details - a time and date when this interview supposedly took place, the names of the agents involved, et cetera - then I might dial back the skepticism a bit, pending a response from DHS.
If, on the other hand, DHS flat-out denies that such a thing has ever taken place, and we get no more corroboration from the presumed target of this thing, where are we supposed to go from there? There's just not enough information to give it much credence, not when there's a hundred more innocuous potential explanations, starting with the poster up above who suggested that this was the 21'st century equivalent of the-dog-ate-my-homework.
That way people like you can say "well, there isn't any confirmation so it probably isn't true". Isn't that nice?
"People like me" being people who don't go off half-cocked, I guess. I suppose that it would be too much for you to point out that the gag order only applies in cases where a search warrant has been issued by a FISA court, but we don't know if that's the case, because if the paper bothered to contact the library for comment, they didn't report it - not so much as a "no comment".
You may be comfortable getting out the torches and the hounds based on such skimpy info, but I'll pass, thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
(Cue wocka wocka porn music)
I'll guess from your handle that you may not be a native speaker of English. In which case, allow me to offer some friendly advice - the word you were probably looking for is "analyze", with a "y". "Analize" with an "i" is also a verb meaning...well, something else.
Okay, mod me offtopic now....
And yet Vivendi apparently finds them troublesome. Hmmm...
I think you misunderstand me - what they don't have to do is abide by the disclosure requirements in their NYSE listing agreement. Nor do they have to follow the exchange rules on corporate governance, or otherwise meet the minimum standards for listing. Perhaps this French thing has similar requirements, but I'm inclined to seriously doubt it.
Of course, but the advantage to investing in exchange-listed stocks is that the disclosure requirements and SEC filing requirements give potential investors far more information than what is required of delisted or unlisted companies. If you plan to hit the pink sheets, be my guest, but that's not much more than high-stakes gambling, IMO :)
That sounds like a forward-looking statement, which cannot be guaranteed :)
Though I'm sure the European exchange does have its rules...
I'm sure they do too, but US listing rules are just about the toughest in the world. I don't know much about French requirements particularly, but I do know that companies can be perfectly compliant with listing requirements in Frankfurt, and yet still have it be damn near impossible to parse out things like whether or not they're actually profitable. Trivial things like that ;)
Yeah. The problem for those investors is that Vivendi's reporting and disclosure requirements just got a whole lot looser. Better get a real close look at their books if you're planning on sending any money their way.
Killjoy :)
The types of people who cheat in their CS courses are likely the types of people who'd cheat regardless of their chosen field. My wife teaches history (on the high school level, though), and there's just been an explosion of plagiarism in the last few years or so - it's just tremendously easy and tempting to CTRL-C CTRL-V some website into your paper.
Of course, what these knuckleheads don't realize is that the same developments that make it easy for them to cheat also make tremendously easy to catch cheaters - there have been course sections where literally half the class has gotten caught with a hand in the cookie jar, and it really, really makes me wonder what the fuck these kids are thinking. Forget about not learning the tools for your career - some of them are bound and determined not to learn a goddamn thing, period.
I was kind of wondering myself if my PIII-700 with a Geforce 2MX would break the 1 fpm barrier. Eh, I'll just put it up and if anyone asks I'll tell 'em they're slides from my last vacation...on Proxycon...or something. Whatever.
Well, not exactly. If the EU is going to be shitting out money like a broken slot machine, it remains for you and I to figure out how we can get a piece of this. I'm certain that, given the proper funding, I can help them solve the technical obstacles before them However, for deeply complicated reasons (it's complicated) much of my research will need to be conducted in places like Bali and the Bahamas and so forth.
CoCo had color, but I assure you the TRS-80 sure didn't. Hell, the Model I didn't even have lowercase *letters*, unless you replaced the character generator. More here:
http://www.tim-mann.org/trs80faq.html#%5B17%5D
Indeed. The extra-funny part is that I really am sitting on some mod points right now, so I actually passed on the chance to moderate this discussion in favor of a throwaway comment, and this is how the CHEESE EATING SURRENDER MONKEYS treat me.
Hey, if I'm gonna be marked a troll, I might as well do something to earn it :)
No worries, my friend - I'll mod them all up for you. ;)
Those are the people least likely to respond to this sort of thing, unfortunately. It's a gross generalization, but there's some truth to the suggestion that there are two types who respond to self-selected satisfaction surveys.
A) the unjustifiably happy (read: fanboys), who wouldn't report a problem even if the thing were glowing green, making them sterile, and causing their to hair fall out.
B) the unjustifiably unhappy (read: anal-retentive perfectionists), who complain loudly and vociferously when they find their new toy has some dust on the outside of the case, and why won't the company immediately recall these POS's to address this ridiculous dust-gathering issue?
Normal people are less likely to bother, sad to say, especially if they're generally pretty happy with it except for maybe one or two minor things.
My conclusion? After only four days, my first guess would be that it's just a shit drive, and that you got burned by the bathtub curve and poor quality control. If you'd been running it for a year, I'd be a bit more suspicious, but brand-new components can and do fail all by themselves for no apparent reason.
I hadn't heard that, but that's basically what I'm saying - there's gotta be more to the story. It would be quite appalling if not, but I'd like to know if that's all there is, or if there's more.
You still don't get it. What happens when you tell people what it means and they don't believe you or agree with you? You may be "right" in some sense, but guess what? The 270,000,000 people who are "wrong" get to have their way, and not the one guy who's "right". You want "right" to carry the day? Better back up and rethink how to persuade people to see things your way, 'cause this ain't it.
Gosh, hard to believe you have a hard time being taken seriously, isn't it?
Grow up, junior. If you can't make a rational argument in a calm fashion, quit wasting my time.
Oh, so the White House has been moved outside the District? I happen to live a half hour away too, and I know that a number of sites have been restricted from time to time, since 9/11.
Screeech go the shifting goalposts. What happened to there being oodles of sites that you can't visit, period? Now we've shifted to "restricted from time to time"? You are aware that some sites in DC were "restricted from time to time" long before 9/11. And I can't help but notice that you can't quite manage to name any of these mysterious sites that you can no longer visit.
Pardon? I don't know the case. Why should I care, anyway?
Because it's the law. Why am I even bothering with this?
Angry and ignorant. Nice combo.
Bullshit. That is completely false, and the fact you say that really explains a lot about you.
No, it's completely true, and the fact that you dismiss it out of hand says to me that you haven't really spent much time thinking about it, so let me give you something to chew on. You can write down all the rights you like, in your fanciest script on the most elegant bit of parchment you can find. But none of it means anything if the people around you don't respect those rights you've declared for yourself. The Constitution is not meaningful to us today because it's under glass in the National Archives, it's meaningful because we, all of us, agree to abide by it. The First Amendment means whatever you can get we, the people, to agree that it means. The Fourth Amendment means whatever we, the people agree it means.
Now you can come at me with all sorts of arguments on natural law, original intent, or whatever you like. But as a practical matter, those arguments carry as much weight as the people around you assign them. As a practical, day to day matter, your rights are as meaningful as the people around you agree they should be. Chew on that, and think about what it means to have a right that nobody else in the world agrees to, abides by, or respects. Then try to think of a better way to persuade them that they should agree to the meanings you want.
Last word's yours. Make it good.
You do what's been done for twenty years now - you go to the ticket counter and exchange it for a ticket in that someone else's name. Really, now.
I am, theoretically, no longer entitled to counsel, or any hearing whatsoever, if I am arrested on suspicion of terrorist activity.
"Theoretically" meaning you're not actually affected by this hypothetical, I suppose. Right.
I can no longer visit various sites in DC.
Yeah, that might work if I wasn't a half-hour from DC and able to verify that personally. The only building I know of that you can no longer tour, post-911, is the FBI building. "Various sites," indeed.
I can no longer peacefully protest near the RNC, except in designated "free speech zones."
You've gotta be kidding me. That kind of thing has been around for decades. The Supreme Court has repeatedly and decisively ruled that reasonable time-and-place restrictions do not offend the Constitution - lucky for you, lest I set up my boombox on the street outside your bedroom window at 3 AM.
I am no longer free from search and seizure without a warrant or probable cause
Terry v Ohio - 1968 or so.
The point is what the government can and cannot do. Government powers are reaching far beyond the bounds set forth in the Constitution.
So you assert, but my copy must have omitted the portion where your opinions on such things are definitive. The Constitution is more social compact that anything else, and it has precisely as much meaning as your friends and neighbors assign to it - you may wish to review the last election to see who they voted for.
However, it's also unfair to attack someone who pointed out that if a gag order exists (possible with NSLs), there wouldn't be any confirmation available.
Not necessarily. If the library or ILL staff were served with such a thing, they wouldn't be able to confirm it. Of course, the student would still be able to disclose the details of his interview, if he were so inclined.
If this is the foundation of your argument, it's built on sand. I should hardly have to point out that the legality or illegality of the recently revealed NSA intercepts is very much an open question. Some in congress say it's illegal, the administration says they were conducted in accordance with applicable law - either way, the courts have yet to weigh in, so for you to suggest that they are definitively illegal is not a claim supported by the facts thus far.
One case of the illegal detention of a bus rider in Colorado which the ACLU is working on
Worked. As you may or may not know, the charges were dropped, and the lady in question will not be prosecuted. Given that this is widely considered to be the correct outcome, this hardly seems evidence of creeping totalitarianism.
I assume you're referring to the Khaled Masri case. In which case, the question to you is, illegal under whose law? Certainly not the law of the United States. The Supreme Court is clear on this subject - non-citizens not within the territorial boundaries of the United States are not entitled to the protections of the Constitution. You may certainly argue that the CIA violated local law in snatching him. You may argue that it is an unwise foreign policy to do so. But it is definitely not illegal under US law to do what was done.
This is how the political process works. While it would be nice if those who disagreed with us - e.g., Dick Cheney - would just shut up and go away, the reality is that the administration has the right to lobby on behalf of legislation it finds favorable, and against legislation it finds disfavorable. You may not agree with them, but it is rather disingenuous to present disagreement as illegitimate in and of itself.
Perhaps it would be wise to avail yourself of the facts before passing judgement. All your prescription does is set you up for manipulation by some other set of folks. Checking your brain at the door is never a good move, even if the folks who appear to agree with you seem like really nice people who only want the best for everyone.
Really. What were you able to do ten years ago that you can't do now?
The government simply should *not* have this power, period.
I be persuaded of that, but let's start with some facts, and not *only* paranoia.
One thing's for sure, though - the fellow who wrote this article is an absolutely horrible journalist, and being a good journalist isn't exactly a high bar to clear. He really should have done a better job following up with DHS, with the library/ILL personnel, getting a statement from the kid himself on promise of confidentiality, etc. This, as it stands, is worse than nothing at all.
Truthfully, though, the burden of proof is rightfully on the person or persons making the claim. If the professors, or better yet, the student in question, were a little more forthcoming on some details - a time and date when this interview supposedly took place, the names of the agents involved, et cetera - then I might dial back the skepticism a bit, pending a response from DHS.
If, on the other hand, DHS flat-out denies that such a thing has ever taken place, and we get no more corroboration from the presumed target of this thing, where are we supposed to go from there? There's just not enough information to give it much credence, not when there's a hundred more innocuous potential explanations, starting with the poster up above who suggested that this was the 21'st century equivalent of the-dog-ate-my-homework.
"People like me" being people who don't go off half-cocked, I guess. I suppose that it would be too much for you to point out that the gag order only applies in cases where a search warrant has been issued by a FISA court, but we don't know if that's the case, because if the paper bothered to contact the library for comment, they didn't report it - not so much as a "no comment".
You may be comfortable getting out the torches and the hounds based on such skimpy info, but I'll pass, thanks.