Grex Agora41 Conference Item 34

0-24

25-49

50-67

Author

Message

18 new of 67 responses total.

bru

response 50 of 67:

Mar 31 04:20 UTC 2002

Anyone here ever write any programs?  Are you sure that no one in any
government can ever make use of that program to keep track of something or
to manage some other program that will enablethem to fight a war more
successfully? Hmm?

Just like a man in a bar brawl, governments will use any tool they can lay
their hands on to gain the adavantage.  If you make it possible for their
computers to operate longer, more efficiently, faster, you have given tham
an advantage however slight.  If they use that to kill severalthousand
people thatn they couldhave without it, are you responsible for their crimes?

janc

response 51 of 67:

Mar 31 04:37 UTC 2002

Obviously if I write a general tool like a compiler or a database server, then
that tool can and will be used for just about anything imaginable.  I don't
think the authors of such tools can be considered responsible for such usage
of their tools.  That doesn't mean that no programmer ever knows what the end
use of their program is.

However, it is certainly possible to get a specific application program
written without the programmer ever knowing what the program was going to be
used for.  I was once a sub-contractor on a job where they wanted a program
written to display a series of images on a sub-frame of a web page and making
particular things happen when someone clicked on the image.  A small and
simple job.  The people I was working for didn't know the exact application.
It's not unusual for clients to be fairly cagey about their plans (everyone
thinks they have the idea that is going to make a billion on the internet).
However, these people were so cagey that we all started to get suspicious.
Sure enough, when they installed the program on their site, they couldn't get
it to work.  They started giving us all sorts of technically incompetent
descriptions of what was wrong, but wouldn't let us look at it.  Eventually
they broke down and after talking a lot about how sure they were that we were
professionals, gave us the URL.  Sure enough, it was a porn site.  We fixed
the program, wrapped up the contract, and took no further contracts from them.
We weren't massively opposed to porn, but there is plenty of better work in
the world.  Anyway, porn sites are lousy customers.  Among other things, few
of them are very serious about copyrights.

Getting back to the point, it is entirely possible for a progammer to develop
a program without knowing its end use.  However, on a program of any size,
you'd have to be an idiot not to get suspicious.  You are responsible for what
you know, and for what you should know if you aren't burying your head in the
sand.

rcurl

response 52 of 67:

Mar 31 04:46 UTC 2002

Re #48: that is the kind of situation that may lead shareholders to sue
the board for neglect of fiduciary duty, depending upon the effect of
the action upon such shareholder's assets. They can win if it was
a negligent action by the board.

The specific situation mdw postulated in #48, however, he also postulates
as a "not make a loss" situation, in that it is given that it was
a profit making action in the longer run. This rather puts it on the
fence, depending upon the situation of the shareholders during the
process, which is not described.

jp2

response 53 of 67:

Mar 31 04:58 UTC 2002

51:  Kinda like Grex, eh?

russ

response 54 of 67:

Mar 31 05:31 UTC 2002

I'm sure most of the people who'd like to kill Jamie already have guns.

jp2

response 55 of 67:

Mar 31 05:37 UTC 2002

That's why there are plenty of people who'd like to see me live with guns,
too :)

jazz

response 56 of 67:

Mar 31 08:06 UTC 2002

        Until, and unless, there's a strong (financial) reason for
corporations to abstain from morally dubious actions, succesful corporations
won't abstain.

oval

response 57 of 67:

Apr 1 00:29 UTC 2002

 .. just look at Monsanto.

russ

response 58 of 67:

Apr 1 03:41 UTC 2002

Re #56:  Exactly, you are right.  The need to keep the advantage
otherwise creates a "race to the bottom".

The advantage from funny accounting is a different matter; it only
lasts until the tricks come to light, if that long.  Stockholders
are the ones left holding the bag if the company's assets turn out
to be over-stated; if they don't trust the company's books, they
are going to discount the value of the company and the stock price
will be lower.  This puts the company at risk of becoming a takeover
target and having its management ousted.  On the other hand, a
company with squeaky-clean books will have greater investor confidence
and a higher stock price; that higher price could allow the company
to borrow more cheaply or even take over and incorporate or dismember
sloppier companies.  This is a very strong advantage.

Don't believe this could happen?  It's happening right now.  The
"take a badly-run, under-valued company and break it into pieces
which sell for more" trick has been going on for at least two
decades.  This is all fine capitalist practice, practiced best in
the good ol' USofA.  Just think:  if Japan's kieretsu had been
subject to the same kind of discipline, Japan would not be where
it is.  Aren't you glad we didn't go their way and have only one
Enron instead of a nation of them?

bdh3

response 59 of 67:

Apr 1 04:51 UTC 2002

re#58:  Huh?  Do you even know what a 'kieretsu' is?  In korea its
called a 'gay' and elsewhere in asia a 'tong'.  It has worked rather
well for a long time.  The problem in japan has little to do with
'kierestu' per se and more to do with basic cultural 'character flaws'
that have more to do with small penis and black hair than anything
else.

polygon

response 60 of 67:

Apr 1 14:18 UTC 2002

Interesting article in the business section of the NYT a few days ago:  an
analyst for Payne Webber sent an email on August 21 advising his clients to
sell Enron quickly, pointing to its worsening situation.

Enron got wind of this, sent a message to Paine Webber, and the analyst was
fired less than three hours later.  Paine Webber sent out a new message
stressing that Enron was still a "strong buy". 

A couple months later, the stock was worthless.

The analyst in question (Chinese name like Hu or Wu) now works for AG
Edwards.  Through his lawyer, he had no comment.

Paine Webber apparently was profiting hugely by handling employee stock
accounts for Enron.

jmsaul

response 61 of 67:

Apr 1 16:02 UTC 2002

I hope that's a serious SEC violation.

gull

response 62 of 67:

Apr 1 16:50 UTC 2002

It's just good ol' fashioned capitalism at work, right russ?

polygon

response 63 of 67:

Apr 3 07:31 UTC 2002

Paine Webber maintains that the Wu or Hu guy was the one who broke the
rules.  He wasn't supposed to send out stock picks (or anti-picks) which had
not been approved by his superiors at PW.  However, it was also pointed out
that analyists at Paine Webber and other such places do this all the time.

The other interesting point from the article is that many people in Paine
Webber were well aware, by August 21, that Enron was collapsing.  However,
everyone else adhered to the code of silence.

I will refrain from the cheap trick of repeating Paine Webber's famous
four-word advertising slogan here.  However, if Paine Webber ever calls me
up to hawk their investment services at me, I look forward to going over
this case in excruciating detail until the telemarketer hangs up.

jmsaul

response 64 of 67:

Apr 3 18:22 UTC 2002