Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment corporate looting (Score 4, Insightful) 20

This starts out is an obvious example of corporate looting. The holding company will have the power to sell off parts of the operating company. That's what holding is. In a corporate looting environment, selling off parts means selling the company for scrap metal. Selling the scrap is what constitutes as 'improved investor returns' mentioned in TFA. Invented by the British and perfected by the Americans, asset stripping is the perfect robber baron game.
First you sell every part of company you can, calling the sold parts non-essential, non-core competence and lossmakers. This makes the company's bottom line look awesome for a while, which raises stock prices. Nevermind the long term crippling of the company.
You then get to walk away with the money from the sales as dividends. If you can pull it off, you proceed to take out loans on the company, backed with the risen stock and dividends, and hyped about plans for a glorious future under the so-well-performing new management. You then pocket this cash infusion while leaving the empty shell of the company with the greatest possible amount of debt you can arrange. Lastly you sell the still-inflated stock for a sweet profit and walk away having skinned the company three times over.

But the rabbit hole goes deeper in this case. What is interesting here is that Samsung is not really a publicly traded company as we understand it. The Koreans have their own model of enterprise, the chaebol, and pretty much all the big players in South Korea are chaebols. These have heavy connections with the state, you can almost call it state ownership if you need to. Money, influence and political needs flow rather freely between the state and the company. If the company is short of cash, they will get an infusion from the state. If the state is short of cash, they get an infusion from the company. There is also quite an amount of corruption that happens in these conditions, but bear in mind that the state-private model of the chaebol is what built South Korea and is still what makes the country live long and prosper.
Have no surprise then that what is reported as a profit or a loss by the company, is mostly a meaningless number crafted to fill some particular purpose of a particular time. Don't want to report a loss? Here's a billion from the Korean state. After all, the state does not care much in which pocket it's money is on a certain moment as long as it's there and filling a purpose. All players worthy of their salt on the stock market are of course aware of this and plan their actions accordingly.
So when you manage to create a new governing body for Samsung this way, you also get to have a very influential connection into the South Korean government, and this connection also has it's dark side. This might mean that the players behind this are not only setting out to loot Samsung, but the whole of South Korean state and economy. Which is not a far fetch considering the way countries are being fscked up left and right these days... Interesting times.

Comment Re:Shipping documents (Score 1) 260

This. Most of the discussion here focuses on the +/- of paperless, and I'm an old fashioned guy who likes his books and newspapers on paper. but the question was about the paperless /office/. And once you introduce computers to the office, paper sucks. Once you start doing most of your work on the computer, fetching that piece of paper becomes a costly context switch. Get up, rummage through the cabinets, extract it from the binder or whatnot and get back to your desk. Time wasted, concentration lost, trains of thought derailed.
The only reason you would want paper is that goddamn other company still doing their business like it's 1965.

Stealing the points from down below:
Paper is portable? How are computer files not portable? And why are you doing files anyway, files are still the paper mindset. Put it simply, you should have a database and a frontend, with business logic in between and apis on the side.
Paper is durable? The fact you can store paper for a hundred years, so what? A detailed archive is a liability, not a bonus, to a business. You shred everything once you are no longer required to keep it.
Paper is harder to edit? Do not kid yourself. Fake and/or modified documents are as old as documents themselves, if not older. The arms race between these two is a fascinating story in itself. At least these days we have digital signatures, which go way beyond anything in the analogue world.

So is the paperless office a dream? As of now, sadly, yes. But let me call the shots on what is going to happen. Paperless is going to win. Not because we care about the environment or our efficiency or convenience or whatnot. It's going to win because printers suck, all of them, period. Some of them suck horribly, some of them terribly and some of them you think are kind of okay in a way until you get to know them better. And it's getting worse every year because of the crapification of everything. Search your feelings. You know it to be true! I, for one, welcome our new paperless overlords.

Comment Re:This stuff drives me nuts (Score 2, Funny) 166

Shrek: Ogres are like onions.
Donkey: They stink?
Shrek: Yes. No.
Donkey: Oh, they make you cry.
Shrek: No.
Donkey: Oh, you leave em out in the sun, they get all brown, start sproutin’ little white hairs.
Shrek: No. Layers. Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? We both have layers.
Donkey: Oh, you both have layers. Oh. You know, not everybody like onions.

Comment Re:Same old playbook (Score 1) 508

This is how everything goes to crap. E.g:

It's fine to blame the government, and the *current* political community on top of it, but don't blame the voters.... Many of us using the state and its derivatives (the law, the institutions, the services) think this thing is horrible and would have stepped in earlier if we'd been paying closer attention to politics five or six years ago. We kind of just assumed that the adults who'd been in charge there were still making decent architectural decisions while we went on with our lives.

Comment Re:Bury the lede (Score 2) 64

What are you talking about? We are sacrificing red tape on the altar of the people. The national ID card is tremendously helpful. It cuts the latency of most of your government interaction down to mere minutes, the time it takes you to click through the user interface of a service. This is unheard of In most of the civilized world, where it can take months to get your random papers done. The crypto on this is open source, and anybody is free to implement their own. I cannot figure out what better 'clear goals' you could ask for.

Do you know how long it takes for me to prove my legal existence and identity? A few seconds.
Do you know how long it takes for me to file my taxes? About a minute.
Do you know how long it takes for me to start a business? A few hours.
I could go on.

The meat of your comment seems to be the all-too-common American hate towards the government. Well let me tell you, do not make the mistake to assume that a government per se is bad. A government is what you make of it. You can not exist without one more than you can exist without the division of labor. You might also remember a certain revolution in which you replaced a bad one with a good one so you have options, you know.
Ours government might not be the best, but it's also not the worst, and we trust our everyday lives with it. The fact that your government is the worst is your own fault and your own fault alone, and until you fix it or replace it you deserve all of it.

Comment Re:This (Score 1) 255

What he probably means is closer to 'reinventing/NIH considered harmful'. If you start from scratch, you are bound to make many of the same mistakes the original developers made. Also you will only have a vague idea of the actual requirements of the project, which will waste a lot of your (time) budget on redesign. Even if you are the author of the original, once some time has passed you most probably don't have any idea what most of the code does - weird corner cases and bugfixes everywhere, with no recollection of the reasons thereof.
The devil is in the details, and once you take a few steps beyond a 'hello world' program the accumulative domain knowledge and experience embedded in the code of a mature project become pretty much invaluable, making up most of the costs sunk into it.
Rewriting such a project should therefore, within reason, be avoided if at all possible - once you actually start with it, you really don't know where it will take you. While the English language knows about reinventing the wheel, my language (Estonian) talks about reinventing the bicycle. That gives you a very good perspective of the work you would have ahead - think about all the little details, dead ends and improvements the bicycle has had in it's 200 years - would you be willing to do it again?
Exceptions, of course, do exist. Sometimes you just cannot make the existing code work for you. Sometimes you do not have the source or the rights to change it. Sometimes you want to do it for fun, for excercise, for experience. Sometimes it is the crapfest that is OpenSSL and you just need to take it behind the barn and shoot it. Just don't make a habit of it I guess:)

Comment Re:Uh uh (Score 1) 372

Wow, critical of the critique, while not pointing out any flaws therein. That has got to be the most original viewpoint I've ever read anywhere.
Tell you what: how about you depose of your own tyrant heads of state first and then we'll see if we can find mine in my run-of-the-mill western democracy.

Comment Re:Uh uh (Score 2) 372

I would say you need to go deeper than that.
Technology in itself is neutral. Why is it a problem? Who are the people who abuse it, what are their incentives, how is it that they are in a position to create problems out of technology?
Globalisation in moderation is quite nice. I mean you like foreign food, goods, people, culture. How has globalisation then evolved into a situation where it craps on everything it touches?
Regressive taxes. Well a society can structure taxes whatever way it likes, there is no right or wrong way besides suitability for a purpose. When I look at the situation in the US, I get more of an impression that the problem is that all the people hate all the taxes. Well taxes are your goddamn phone bill, you do not argue against paying your bills, do you? With taxes you split the bill to purchase services, whether the reason is to save on cost, improve on quality or just make the service happen at all. You all want police, roads and schools, and you want them to be good, right? Then put up or shut up, pay your way and get some QA and accountability into the process.

The thing with reasons is that you need to always look deeper into them. What are the reasons of the reasons? What are the reasons of the reasons of the reasons? You need to find the root reasons and solve those, then you have the possibility for improvement. When you are sick, you don't treat the symptoms, you treat the illness.

Slashdot Top Deals

In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy.