Incorrect. In buyouts, offers are often made at significant premiums to the market value. In other words, companies are often worth much more than share prices indicate.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
If you've worked in IT for a while you should be able to put together a $150k check...
Wall Street isn't buying these things. Big companies (Facebook, Google) are buying them. And they are "worth" whatever these companies are willing to pay for them, regardless of their current profit levels.
Right, and the hip cats who built apps with those two years ago have moved on, so there are tons of jobs as maintenance programmers opening up.
It's Sunday afternoon. You have something more newsworthy? Submit it your damn self.
How much bitcoin do you have at this point?
From the perspective of those in power, the impact on the economy is the largest factor to consider.
It's like they're trying to shoot themselves in the foot. They are having trouble attracting and retaining talent? So they sue their former employees? Who would want to work for a company that does that? Do they think they can keep their current employees from leaving using fear? Disgusting.
Furthermore, having an affair can cause you to lose your security clearance because it puts you at risk of blackmail.
Having security clearance is mandatory for the director of the CIA, so his resignation is pretty much required.
This is not correct. Some platforms are secure by default. Others are not. For
That is a myth. Technological advancement is accelerating. Entire new branches of technology are being born. Comparing a decade to a century (with hindsight) is hindering your vision.
You may have been in IT for 20 years, but you haven't worked at a level that gives you much exposure to security, clearly.
"Data breach from lack of encryption" is a common problem. From a legal standpoint, data on an unencrypted laptop must be assumed leaked if the laptop is stolen or lost. So when HR loses a laptop and has to buy the whole company credit monitoring - that's an expense saved by FDE. The problem is much worse if you have customer data or data worth stealing.
Is one lock enough? Fuck no. The principle of defense in depth exists for a reason. Because in the computer world locks are constantly being picked and break for no reason. You need multiple overlapping (not identical) security measures or you are already owned.
Seattle? The home of Amazon? Why on earth don't they just move their datacenter to Amazon Web Services? They could probably do it for less than the $2.1 million they're spending on this single part!
Bitcoins are secure and stuff. Nobody can steal your bitcoins unless they get your private key.
Every tech company is losing staff, because none are willing to hire junior-level workers and train them. So companies keep competing over the same fixed number of people. And the quickest way to get a raise is to jump ship. So there you have it.
It's not just tech, either. There are lots of college-educated bartenders these days, because every "entry level" position requires 3 years of experience. It's absurd.